PNAS: Witchdoctors of science — Anderegg’s blacklist of scientists

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: a step back to the Stone Age

A shameful day in the history of science. The once esteemed National Academy of Science is reduced to pagan witchcraft: point the bone at the blacklist, count the tea-leaf-citations, put on your funny hat and make a prophesy about the weather.

Some critics are saying the survey is flawed because it uses artificial groupings. Artificial be damned — the survey is flawed because it’s a waste-of-time work of anti-science for even existing. Science is not a democracy. Natural laws don’t form because anyone says so, and the only way to find out the answer is to … look at the evidence. Doh.

This adulation of individuals and tests of character, “success”, or popularity is the anti-thesis of what the great brains-trust of science ought to do. In science all minds test their theories against the universe, and only the real world matters. The petty world of human reputations is steeped in bias and conflicts of interest with personality defects and political power grabs, not to mention the corrupting influence of money. Science achieved vast success for civilization by freeing us from exactly this cess-pool of complexity, to rise above the posturing and consider only impartial observations.

Which Doctor or Witchdoctors?

Since the dawn of time tribal witchdoctors have been forecasting storms and asking us to pay tribute to their idols. The NAS has descended into abject farce. Argument by authority is the disguise of the witchdoctor — Trust me, I am the chosen one.

The list of approved “climate scientists” might as well be a list of anointed preachers of the Cult of Climate Science. The esteemed?

Post Note: This is rampant argument from authority, a known fallacy of reasoning for over 2,000 years. It is utterly shameful that a supposedly scientific institute should support this kind of stone-age thinking.

What are they measuring? Papers or paper money?

Roger Pielke Jnr wondered what the new paper measured, but it seems pretty clear from here: The survey is a loose proxy for government grants. Just add up the salaries of all the believers vs the unconvinced. The US government bestowed $79 billion (1990 – 2009) on scientists who looked for a crisis and what a shock, what a non-event of no proportions, the paid team found a crisis, blow me away, but when the peasants ask for evidence, the witchdoctors resort to the ancient art of bluster and scoff at those who ask the questions.

The science-communication pollution from the PNAS contributes to global confusion, it feeds the dark soul of undirected religious brains who think the Gods of Science are real and have something to say. These “Gods” are fake, and we bow not before them. The lowliest high school science student who searches for truth among the measurements is far more worthy than the Great Pretenders who think their own opinions count for more than radiosonde results.

Shame on you Schneider, traitor to science. Shame on the NAS editors who allowed this pathetic excuse for research into their publications. And shame on any member of the NAS who doesn’t shout in protest at this denigration of the good name that took decades to build.

UPDATE: Baa Humbug points out that the article (Full PDF) is tagged with “Climate Denier”. In doing so, the NAS officially steps across that ugly line into outright name-calling. Wherefore art thou, subspecies homo-sapiens-denier?

Once again it’s all about money creating reputation, and the churnalists portray the results as if a vast majority of submitted papers by the CAGWist crowd actually means AGW consensus. This blacklist just proves what we’ve been saying all along, that climate realist science has been stifled and caused fewer papers published against the alarmist crowd. Well golly..

At the risk of repeating myself it is, was and always will be about the money. The CAGW mentality reminds me of what is often said by the avaricious, “If money isn’t the most important thing I would hate to see what comes in second!”

If Machiavelli were alive today his most famous work, “The Prince” would have been written as “The Climatologist”!

There is always hope. Perhaps Al Gore can give up all his earthly goods and ill gotten gains to atone for his crimes against humanity? Assuming, of course that his estranged wife doesn’t get it all in the divorce settlement!

Sort of on the same topic ….
Maybe I’m hyper sensitive but this article (from the Australian yesterday) on “killer chimps” appears to follow the same trajectory. I.E., that scientific discoveries now have to pass through the “politically correct” filter before they can be published. The authors appear to be anxious not to cause offence by stressing that their findings have no implications for human behavior. Yet, I would have thought that that was the fundamental discovery! So it is with climate science. It would appear that scientists have willingly moved to China or Russia where science is subservient broader political objectives. Utterly corrupted by the grant process.

I do like that now I have a definitive list of intelligent scientists as a reference. Can you believe the implicit insults of this paper that those listed are apparently too dumb and stupid to understand the science behind the AGW theory? C’mon!!!! Really, that someone of the esteem of Freeman Dyson, listed as expertise particle physics (not climate related) amongst many other leading scientists, should be dismissed as unable to understand the subject. Unbelievable.

Imagine this. You are at dinner with Al Gore and Freeman Dyson and the subject of AGW comes up, and the discussion is about the ins and outs of the science ( perhaps the physics) of energy transfer. Who do you think will have the better grasp? Now compare that to anyone on that list and Al Gore. Who would you respect as being across the subject? It’s a no brainer.

This really is the last coward’s castle, this paper. Whatever happens from here on, we have reached the tipping point. “Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle with you. ( and the blacklist)”

The authors of this absurd paper have no idea of the fundamental values of democracy, or of science; confusing scientific method and democracy tells me that they probably don’t understand either. They are totilitarians, and are using ‘authority’ in the worst possible way. As for their methodology, they don’t even understand the limiting parameters of Google’s search options.
When I taught in a multi-storied high school building years ago, we joked about throwing piles of student essays down the main staircase and grading them on how far the essays reached as we were sure the weightier essays would travel further. But we only joked and these people are serious!

As a student of the Reformation I am impressed with the parallels between the struggle for genuine Science against institutional authority and the struggles in which the Reformers were engaged to free theological truth from the same imposition.
As Science must be tested against physical reality, so the Reformers believed theology must be tested against the external reality of divine revelation.

In the Scots Confession (1560) the Kirk Confessed: (emphases mine)

Ch. 9. The notes, signs, and assured tokens whereby the spotless bride of Christ is known from the horrible harlot, the false Kirk, we state, are neither antiquity, usurped title, lineal succession, appointed place, nor the numbers of men approving an error. [

Ch. 18. So if the interpretation or opinion of any theologian, Kirk, or council, is contrary to the plain Word of God written in any other passage of the Scripture, it is most certain that this is not the true understanding and meaning of the Holy Ghost, although councils, realms, and nations have approved and received it. We dare not receive or admit any interpretation which is contrary to any principal point of our faith, or to any other plain text of Scripture, or to the rule of love.

Ch. 20. … but the reason for councils, at least of those that deserve that name, was partly to refute heresies, and to give public confession of their faith to the generations following, which they did by the authority of God’s written Word, and not by any opinion or prerogative that they could not err by reason of their numbers.

Kerry: Tonight John and Bryan look at the new science behind climate modeling.

Bryan: Professor John Clarke, what is the latest in climate modeling?

John: Modeling is a complex and expensive process, Bryan. It involves handling multiple variables in chaotic interaction with each other in ways we frankly don’t understand. All processed using dubious data on energy-sapping supercomputers at enormous cost to the environment and the tax payer. But the worst part of modeling is the verification and auditing phase, of course.

Bryan: Why’s that?

John: Because there are people out there who think they should be right. Verification is a total waste of time that could be productively used in other pursuits.

Bryan: Such as?

John: Writing grant applications and getting some of that lovely… MONEY!

Bryan: And so you have found a newer, faster method for climate modeling?

John: Yes, Bryan. It’s an old solution for a new problem. Fast, efficient and with minimal carbon footprint.

Bryan: What is it?

John; The Ouija Board, Bryan.

Bryan: The Ouija Board?

John: Yes, the Ouija Board. Made from 100% renewable resources, fast, efficient and reliable. And best of all, it requires no verification or auditing procedures. Which frees up our valuable time for important activities…

Bryan: The lovely money?

John: Yes, Bryan, it is. And, in the hands of a skilled climate scientist, the Ouija Board is 100% accurate.

Bryan: That’s amazing! What have you learnt so far?

John: Well, Bryan, we have communicated with creatures from beyond the grave to obtain accurate historical climatic and lifestyle data. For example, we now know that none of our respondents before the year 1903 regularly engaged in aeroplane travel, which by strange coincidence matches the period when catastrophic climate change began to be observed.

Bryan: Truly amazing!

John: And our ghostly visitors regularly comment on the current global climate.

Bryan: For example?

John: A typical response is [nasal voice] “Lovely and warm place you’ve got, I’d watch my CO2 emissions if I were you.” And then they usually give us a very detailed report on the climate of their day.

John: The very same Bryan. It was as cold as a witch’s tit. Got it straight from the man himself.

Bryan: But what about the Roman dress? You always see statues of him wearing thongs and a bed sheet, with his tackle hanging out.

John: Funny you say that Brian – I asked him the very same question. It transpires that he was on his way to a toga party at the time. He was always having someone take a statue of him on his way to a toga party. Rest of the time he was snugged up like a bug in a rug.

Bryan: But what about the Vikings? The Medieval Warm Period – have you spoken to them?

John: Again Bryan, no such thing as the MWP. A very sad case that, the Vikings. Went on a pleasure cruise to Greenland, where they all perished from the combined effects of starvation and hypothermia. Very cold, Greenland, even today.

Bryan: But didn’t the Vikings live in Greenland for centuries?

John: A resilient race, the Vikings. Very resilient. Hard to kill. Took them centuries to freeze. Quite sad.

Bryan: So you’ve conclusively proven that global temperatures are at unprecedented levels, all due to the catastrophic effects of mankind’s emissions, notably CO2?

John: Got it in one Bryan.

Bryan: What about verification? Can’t a climate sceptic also use these techniques?

Richard at 14 why not something really simple like a lapel pin with a circle at its head; the innermost circle being white (for integrity; honesty; someone who searches) and a black outer rim circling the innermost white circle as it were circumscribing the designated place for those qualities
or could be black but small in the centre with the white area being dominant on the outer area but I think the first would be better
I think the Stevenson screen on a green background is too complicated and a lot of people wouldn’t recognise it

Come on folks. There are around 500 names listed. We know they would need a couple hundred people to read for months to become acquanted with just the writings of these people. This tells me they look for a word or two and make judgment and create a label.

How do I get my name on the Black List to join those who have shown that they at least understand important aspects of the complex technologies associated with climate assessment. I noted David Archibald, Bob Carter, Warwick Hughes, Jennifer Marohasy and the sadly departed Lance Endersbee. Many names are missing – I may have missed Jo’s name.
On The Air Vent I have given some of my background. I am a Chemical Engineer. In Perry’s Chemical Engineering Handbook you will find subjects such as mathematics, statistics, thermodynamics, heat and mass transfer, fluid dynamics, reaction kinetics, process control, psychrometry, evaporation etc all important parts of climate assessment. In addition I have a MBA with some geology, more statistics, and economics.
I have not read one paper from a believer in AGW that shows they understand the basic technologies.
My 5 year old grandson shows more logic than demonstrated in that shameful paper co-authored by pseudo climate “scientist?” Steven Schneider.

Heh, just ask them to use the exact same 908 climate researchers, and show the results of “support for the IPCC tenets” that have already been discredited. If the majority supported conclusions that have already been proven to be wrong – fool me once, shame on you…

Rudd’s gone!…. Even if he doesn’t lose the caucus vote tomorrow, his leadership is damaged now.

He announced that he will get a price on carbon and reintroduce the ETS/CPRS in his press address. This is only ever going to appeal to the Green Fascists and far Left… It looks like Howard’s battlers are coming home to roost. Once again they have sickened of the Labor party’s attack on their lifestyles and intelligence and abandoned Rudd. He is to vain to see it.

If Gillard gets in, it will be interesting to see how the electorate responds… I think the media will love her, but the electorate will punish her for the Building Education Revolution funding’s waste of taxpayers money. Also, she was loyal to Rudd’s ETS/CPRS, so the media will not leave her alone about it if she tries to drop it.

If they have come to this, they must be really desperate, and the sceptics have almost won … think about it … and keep the pressure on.

Rereke,

You beat me to this comment so all I can say is amen brother! Amen!

I might also wonder, as I’ve said before, about the intrinsic truth behind the Peter Principle. Seemingly money and prestige can drive people way beyond their level of incompetence. I wonder how they can sleep with themselves all night.

Perhaps there’s a correlation between the number of successful AGW arguments put forward vs the number of ad-hom attacks thrown back.

First you need to learn what an ad hom is. Stating that you are a time waster is an insult directed at you clearly and openly. It wasn’t meant to deflect debate or avoid debate, which is the reason an ad hom is used.

The proof of you being a time waster, (hence my direct insult being validated), is this response of yours to my question…

HOW THE HELL CAN THEY KNOW SENSITIVITY IF THEY DON’T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT CLOUDS????????

Your response….

Climate Sensitivty includes all short term feedbacks including clouds. Feel free to read up on it.

If they don’t know enough about clouds, their sensitivity results that partly rely on cloud dynamics can not be relied upon.
This is an admission that AGW is based on a figure or a number of figures derived from data that is clearly rubbery.

I like this observation by Andrew Bolt on the Rudd leadership challenge. Is Rudd Gone? Yes

UPDATE 16

How strange. Global warming a year ago was seen as the policy supported by everyone of sense, and by all political parties. Since then the leaders of the both the biggest parties have lost their jobs essentially over this issue. And had Tony Abbott not won the Liberal leadership by a single vote…

My first comment about the paper is that I suspect it was not peer reviewed. Since the 4th author Steve Schneider is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a paper submitted by a member is published without review, sort of a “vanity press” for national academy members.

Rather ironic that their own paper is probably excluded from one of their lists.

Brendon,
I read some of the articles you listed. I was especially interested in the one that quoted the fluctuation dissipation theorem in the abstract as I did my PhD in theoretical physics on a closely related topic. However it turned out to be just another climate model. As are most of the others. They are models and computer simulations of climate sensitivity and have not been verified.

This quotation from Prof Michael Kelly, a physicist at Cambridge University (and as yet not on this hilarious black list) may interest you -

“I take real exception to having simulation runs described as experiments (without at least the qualification of ‘computer’ experiments). It does a disservice to centuries of real experimentation and allows simulations output to be considered as real data. This last is a very serious matter, as it can lead to the idea that real ‘real data’ might be wrong simply because it disagrees with the models! That is turning centuries of science on its head.”

Prof Kelly was commenting on papers presented to him as part of the Oxburgh CRU inquiry following Climategate. Any thoughts on his quotation? Agree? Disagree? Haven’t got a clue?

If they don’t know enough about clouds, their sensitivity results that partly rely on cloud dynamics can not be relied upon.

You can measure the planet’s response to forcing without having to understand every one of the individual components.
Just like you can determine the weight a box of objects by measuring it on a set of scales. You don’t need to measure each of the objects within the box.

This is an admission that AGW is based on a figure or a number of figures derived from data that is clearly rubbery.

Or that you are clearly out of your depth when it comes to understanding what climate sensitivity represents.

Brendon…Pssst. You can’t measure the “forcing” (ie. weight) of a marble in a box of toys by weighing the whole box and not knowing what the other items weigh…. That IS the point. Climate models are weighing a whole box and pretending they can guess the weights of everything in it. The models are not only UNverified, they are verifiably wrong.

I first learned of the “Galileo List”, as it’s being dubbed (I preferred The Cardinal’s List, but then I preferred “Fabrigate” to “Climategate”, and a fat lot of good it did me) over at Collide-a-scape, and I do urge you all to go and have a look at the discussion, if only for the pleasure of seeing some of the smarter committed warmies (OK less dumb) who understand just how damaging this ridiculous paper is to their cause recoiling in horror. It is of course to Jo’s credit that these “cheer-reviewers” don’t frequent her blog, but trust me, if you enjoy seeing warmies twisting on the gibbet, it’s worth a visit right now. On a more serious note, Judith Curry (who like Jo deplored the very idea of the wretched thing, never mind its infantile methodology) is doing her level best to preserve the civil tone of the proceedings, but even she is getting less conciliatory (and more sceptical, IMO) by the day. I make a spear-carrying appearance as TomFP, and was rewarded by being accused by Michael Tobin of “bluster”, for a comment which was then reiterated by a series of proper scientists. Ooh goody…

Bottom line, though is that I think this is great news for denialissimi like me, and most of you I guess. It’s upsetting a lot of scientists who might hitherto have stayed quiet and trusted that the long run would see the bad science driven out by good, but now find themselves on a list compiled for the purpose of slighting them. They now have that bit less to lose…

You can measure the planet’s response to forcing without having to understand every one of the individual components.
Just like you can determine the weight a box of objects by measuring it on a set of scales. You don’t need to measure each of the objects within the box.

You are anologising climate with a box of objects? Well OK, I’ll buy that.
So now tell me, when those objects in the box chaotically change their “weight” and influence each others weight to the point where the weight of the box itself changes, and you don’t have an initial starting position, what is the weight of the box now, what will it weigh in one, five, twenty or a hundred years time? Indeed, you can’t even tell me what the box weighed in the past, let alone be able to predict it into the future.
Large ranges of guesstimates with error bars bigger than the graph itself just don’t convince me. Come back when you’ve got better evidence.

“Climate Sensitivty includes all short term feedbacks including clouds. Feel free to read up on it.”

Don’t know much about it so I decided to read up a bit about greenhouse gases as you suggest. According to Wikipedia “When these gases are ranked by their
contribution to the greenhouse effect, the most important are: water
vapor which contributes 36–72%, carbon dioxide which contributes 9–26%,
methane which contributes 4–9%, ozone which contributes 3–7%.”

Wikipedia says “When considering water vapor and clouds together, the contribution is
between 66-85%.” So if water vapour and clouds are worth 66%-85%, what is CO2 left with? Maybe 5% to 15% perhaps. CO2 is alot less important than I ever knew before, thanks for the suggestion.

What is puzzling is the size of the ranges for CO2′s contribution; seems like after 40 years of study climatologists would have the ranges down a lot closer than this, I mean 9%-26% c’mon that’s 3 fold range.

Now your climate sensitivity suggestion part I don’t know much about that so I guess I’ll do some reading about that too.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Roland Maurer, Truth Tweeter and Truth Tweeter, John Edenn. John Edenn said: PNAS: Witchdoctors of science « JoNova: A shameful day in the history of science. The once esteemed National Ac.. http://bit.ly/b1Dbhe [...]

Klem… It’s less important for climate change what the relative contribution is and more important what the forcing mechanism is. Throughout history climate change has been primary forced through Milankovitch cycles of orbit, obliquity and tilt of the planet. But this represents an even smaller contribution to warming than even CO2. What the other contributing factors do is act as feedbacks. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is related to the temperature of the planet. Water vapor has relatively little ability to force climate changes. In the past this was the same with CO2. It relied on other factors for releases. The difference now is that we are reintroducing ancient sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere which is acting as the primary forcing mechanism. Google Richard Alley’s lecture titled The Biggest Control Knob A23A.

Academy members can publish what they want to in their Proceedings – without review. This “study” is nothing more than some “supporting evidence” of what NAS president Cicerone and loudmouth Academy members like Paul Ehrlich think, so this was allowed to be included in their Proceedings. It has very little meaning and I wouldn’t pay any attention to it.

I wouldn’t pay much attention to the NAS either, until people like Cicerone and Ehrlich retire from it

[This is not to say, that the qualification process for publication in the Proceedings is without value. I can think of one instance where the process had immense value: Paul Cohen's proof of the independence of the continuum hypothesis and ordinary axiomatic set theory. In this case publication in the Proceedings was vital, because the method he used (called forcing) was invented by himself, so there really wasn't anybody who could review the paper at the time

IF it were true that CO2 were suddenly (for the first time in the history of the planet) the PRIMARY driver of changes in the climate, then there would have been no way whatsoever that the temperature could have plateaued in the past 15 years. CO2 concentrations rose at a relatively steady rate over the past 15 years, and yet temperature has not changed statistically significantly over that same 15 year period. The demonstrable, measureable FACT that temperature plateaued over the past 15 years completely debunks the hypothesis that CO2 has suddenly become the primary driver of climate changes.

CO2 has never been the primary driver of climate, and it never will be. It is a bit-player on a grand stage, controlled by much larger forces than it could ever hope to muster.

Climate models have not even back-predicted the climate correctly, let alone done so in a forward direction….

They don’t know what all of the variables controlling climate EVEN ARE, and they have precious little idea of how the variables interract with each other. As such, any predictive accuracy by any climate model is shear luck.

Show me ONE climate model that accurately predicted no statistically significant temperature rise from 1995-present (hint, there is no such model, ALL models predicted a sharp RISE in temperature from 1995-present).

Thank you, Joanne, for helping to expose the tap root of the Climategate scandal in the very heart of the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

Bad?

Yes, it shows that NAS, the body that reviews budgets for federal research agencies, has defiled the basic principles of science and betrayed its national security mission to protect science. [The victor of World War II was decided by competition between nations to build the first atomic bomb.]

Good?

Yes, it finally explains why experimental data on Earth’s heat source (The Sun) from analysis of lunar soils and breccias from the Apollo Mission to the Moon [1] and analysis of xenon from the Galileo Mission to Jupiter [2] have been hidden or misrepresented for decades by NAS and the federal research agencies that NAS controls.

Actually the models do a very bad job of predicting climate, in that aerosols have to be introduced to fix their inability to explain the drop in temperatures after World War II and the different models have huge differences in the value of this input. In terms of their forward predictive ability over the short space of time we have to compare models with reality, they aren’t looking good; they totally failed to predict the lack of warming over the last 12 years. Kevin Trenberth comments on it in the Climategate emails calling it a “travesty” that they can’t explain it.

Doesn’t give us any confidence (as if we could have any given our lack of understanding of most of the physics) in their predictive ability over the next decade much less a whole century.

Dr Huub Bakker… Actually, you’ve got a lot of stuff backward there. One, Trenberth’s email comments were regarding one data set that was disagreeing with all the other data. In fact, Dr Trenberth has a number of articles out on exactly the issue that was being discussed in the emails.

The models were vindicated very early on with the eruption of Mt Pinatubo and the resulting aerosol effects from that event. They perfectly matched the models.

Robhon… if you think CO2 is such a great forcer and all those other things just “bit players”, then why during the numerous times in the past when the CO2 in the earth atmosphere was more than 10x what it is today, the earth always managed to cool down again back into an ice age? That fact alone confirms CO2 is NOT the primary forcer… it can only be a “bit player”.

Plus, even when the CO2 was 10x higher than today the earth’s lifeforms were not about to go extinct from overheating? Actually, life seemed to have been flourishing excessively well during those high CO2 periods.

Peter B…. No. Inter-decadal variability is expected in all the models. Remember climate is a complex system. Atmospheric CO2 is increasing at a predicable rate. The planet is accumulating heat at a steady rate as well. But how that heat moves through the climate system is much more complex. Remember the vast majority of the energy that’s being accumulated is getting stored in the oceans. That is why so much emphasis is currently being put on measuring ocean temps with the Argo buoys. The big job right now in climate research is to better understand where heat energy goes and how it moves around the planet.

Remember, the global temperature data is so noisy that it currently requires 15 years or more data to get 95% statistical significance. If you’re talking about the temps flattening out in the past decade then you are still talking about information that falls far short of statistically significant.

Alcheson… Again, I would suggest watching Dr Richard Alley’s lecture The Biggest Control Knob A23A. There is a combination of CO2 and rock weathering that acts together to create a sort of thermastat for the planet. Rock weathering pulls CO2 out of the atmosphere over geologic time. Also bear in mind that when CO2 levels were much higher (in the very distant past) the output of the sun was about 10% less than it is today. If NOT for CO2 and other GHG’s being at those levels we would have a permanent snowball earth.

The dataset used for this article is very interesting. If you look at Figure 2, it shows the distribution of articles published by warmists (the CE class) and by CAGW skeptics (the UE class). This graph is convincingly strong evidence that there’s significant bias in the peer review process when you consider that academic scientists generally want to be more prolific than their peers. It’s also interesting that even with the strong bias, a small group of skeptics do get articles past the gauntlet. It’s my suspicion that they let a small group through so they can concentrate their attacks on 4 scientists, rather than hundreds or thousands.

Robhon… point is… if CO2 were the majo forcer.. .then there would be no other forces that could act to cool off the earth and override the heating effect of the CO2 once the CO2 levels were high. Can’t have it both ways… can’t say CO2 is the big driver but then have “some other effect” easily overwhelm it and cool the earth off. Either it is the BIG forcer or it is not.

Alcheson… Not so, actually. Again, you have to look into rock weathering. I think what is confusing the issue here is current human introductions of CO2 and past CO2 feedbacks. Remember, nature rarely has events that rapidly change these systems. You have to have something on the level of the Siberian Traps to create changes as rapid as we are currently doing today. In the past few million years CO2 levels have only changed about 90ppm with a resulting change in the climate from normal to ice ages taking place of a time scale of ~100,000 years. What we’re doing now is potentially doubling CO2 in the course of 200 years.

So CO2 is the biggest determinant of global warming. Just explain this one observation.

One a still night over vegetation, overnight the levels of CO2 at ground level rise due to respiration – up to levels approaching 1000ppm (3 x average atmospheric levels). Yet the lowest temperature of a day is about an hour after dawn. Instead of a rapid rise in temperature as one would expect, you see a fall in temperature. Temperatures then slowly rise to their highest point, while at the same time CO2 concentration is being lowered as plants photosynthesise.

Wouldn’t you think that if CO2 was out to fry the planet it would get into its work early in the day, when it had plenty of mates on the job? Instead we see that the hottest time of the day is much later when the CO2 concentration has fallen close to its lowest level.

Jo –I think a ‘pat on the back ” is required for you and your site.
A story such as this appears and where does everyone go in a hurry to find out about it ? Well done !! Also the fact you are recently attracting alot of off topic comments “from the other side” says something.

Back on topic , I tend to agree that this sort of garbage signals absolute desperation from those who feel they are losing ground fast.
It amazes me how many once great journals and organizations have allowed their reputations to be “dragged into the gutter”. Even if the editors supported a particular view the fact that they did not allow balanced presentation of information and allowed the vitriol , name calling etc to go under their name / brand is astonishing.
Also well done to Dr Judith Curry for being brave again and standing out on her own.

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008
shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing
system is inadequate. — Email 1255352257.txt

He’s not talking about the difference between datasets, he’s talking about the fact that the datasets don’t show the warming that is supposed to be happening. The first sentence of the introduction of the paper he refers to in this email:

The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000 (Fig. 1). Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Fig. 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why isn’t the temperature continuing to go up? — Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001

The assumption from the start is that the planet is warming up and everything from there is based upon this, almost certainly, erroneous assumption. At the moment he is suggesting that the heat accumulation is happening at ocean depths because it’s not showing up anywhere else. The only problem he has there is that the heat hasn’t shown up on it’s way down to the ocean depths.

I don’t know if the models predicted the effects of Pinatubo or not but they certainly never matched anything “perfectly” and the models still have huge variations in the value of the aerosol effect and still didn’t predict the lack of warming for the last 12 years. What’s more their uncertainties aren’t shown correctly anywhere that I’ve seen, only their variance amongst themselves which says almost nothing. Those uncertainties are much larger than the effect they purport to show. (http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html)

Grant… I’m not sure if you’re trying to be facetious or not. But I’ll try to respond. What you’re comparing is something that is not related to the greenhouse effect. Local temperature variances don’t relate to global warming. Since 1859 the capacity of CO2 to absorb heat has been understood. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. When there is excess CO2 there is an energy imbalance and the planet warms. That’s what we have going on today.

Look on the bright side, the NAS has outed itself as being part of the AGW cartel; which includes (among others), “science” publications such as, Nature, Science, New Scientist, and Science News, etc. It’s useful to know who you can’t trust.

Dr Bakker… Yes, the assumption is that the temperature should go up because of the measured energy imbalance. I would suggest that you read the entire Trenberth paper on this subject.

With regards to the models, it was actually a huge deal when Pinatubo went off and they could actually test the models against the magnitude of the volcano. It was spot on. And again, with respect to the past decade, we’re still far short of anything statistically significant. The global temps are a very noisy beast. You really need 15 years of data to reach the standard 95% confidence levels. If you look back 15 years from now we very clearly have statistically significant warming.

Thanks, JoNova. It’s taken more than a whole day (forever in the blogoshpere) but finally someone steps up with the analysis that matters. I think I’m most worried by the inane criticisms coming from the more credible sources. The Pielkes who scoff at where Sr’s name appears and the various criticisms of the “methodology” seem to sanction the creation of the lists in the first place. Kudos to you, stepping up to display the ludicrous basis of such a “paper.” Let’s get serious; this is toilet paper, no matter how it’s dressed up with references, footnotes, boring language and PNAS official typeset.

I suppose the next step is to assign black shirts and boots for all attendees of the next NAS conferences.

To hear all those alarmist, who use the “scientific concensus” argument about global warming, I offer one question that usually leaves them flailing like fish out of water. What is the furthest planet from the sun? Scientific concensus said it was Pluto, until we observed a larger body in the same orbit. The correct answer is Neptune. Science evolves and theories are tested every day. We all make mistakes, but it takes a big man/woman to recognize that and learn from them.
This is all about enriching the Al “I’m a Green Billionaire” Gore. Why doesn’t he put his money on the line and develop a cost effective alternative energy market. Because he can’t. He relies on government to jack up the prices of existing energy to allow him to compete.

You seem to be trolling here. The subject of this thread has nothing to do with climate sensitivity and climate models.

However, the climate models are pure bunkum and their derivations of climate sensitivity are a function of a ‘fiddle’ used to get each of them to emulate past climate (i.e. over the twentieth century). I write to explain this in hope that you will stop your trolling here.

My paper that I reference here was published in 1999 (n.b. over a decade ago) and it states that the 2nd IPCC Assessment Report misrepresented the performance of the Hadley Centre’s General Circulation Models (GCM) that is used to emulate global climate. Kiehl’s paper says the IPCC’s 4th assessment made a similar misrepresentation.

The only difference between my paper and Kiehl’s (except for mine having been published 8 years earlier) is that my paper reported what had been done with the Hadley Centre GCM and Kiehl’s paper reports that other GCMs have adopted the same ‘adjustment’.

My 1999 paper reports that the Hadley Centre GCM showed an unrealistic high warming trend over the twentieth century, and a cooling effect was added to overcome this drift. The cooling was assumed to be a result of anthropogenic aerosol.

So, cooling was input to the GCM to match the geographical distribution of the aerosol. And the total magnitude of the cooling was input to correct for the model drift: this was reasonable because the actual magnitude of the aerosol cooling effect is not known.

This was a reasonable model test. If the drift were a result of aerosol cooling then the geographical pattern of warming over the twentieth century indicated by the model would match observations.

However, the output of this model test provided a pattern of geographic variation in the warming that was very different from observations; e.g. the model predicted most cooling where in reality most warming was observed.

This proved that the aerosol cooling was not the cause – or at least not the major cause – of the model drift.

The Hadley Centre overcame this unfortunate result by reporting the agreement of the global average temperature rise with observations. ButTHIS AGREEMENT WAS FIXED AS AN INPUT TO THE TEST!
It was fixed by adjusting the degree of input cooling to make it fit!

However, this use of supposed ‘aerosol cooling’ to compensate for the model drift means that any input reduction to anthropogenic aerosol cooling must result in the model providing drift which is wrongly indicated as global warming.

Furthermore, Kiehl reports that this fix differs for each climate model. The models each drift by a different amount so they are each compensated by a different amount of so-called ‘aerosol cooling’. But there is only one Earth so at most only one of the models can be right and it is almost certain that they are all wrong.

In any other branch of science this ‘aerosol cooling’ fix would be considered to be incompetence at best and fraud at worst

Importantly, this one fact alone proves – beyond any possibility of doubt – that the climate models provide incorrect indications of global warming. My paper reported this in 1999, and no subsequent dispute of it has been published. Eight years later, in 2007, Kiehle’s paper reported the same, and there has been no published dispute of it.

So, it has been known for more than a decade that the predictions of global warming provided by the models are not valid and their indications of climate sensitivity are wrong.

Finally, your ignorant comments here are a distraction from the discussion of the thread. If you want to know about climate science then ask, but please stop posting ridiculous assertions as though they were facts.

This so-called study is even worse than you realise. I read Lawrence Solomon’s (Energy Probe) dissection of the study yesterday. The study was compiled by a Systems Administrator at the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department of the University of Toronto, who is a True Believer in AGW. Not a “climate scientist”. Not “scientist” at all. Not even a professor, but a computer systems administrator! It gets better (if you can believe it). The statistics he compiled for this study were based on querying Google Scholar with the name of each person in his database, plus the search terms “Climate Change” and “Climate”, then counting the hits! He defended this method as it identified the number of articles each person had published in “peer reviewed” journals.

The author apparently appeared on CBC Radio in Canada last year to present a preliminary result of his “research”, where he declared that pro-AGW “scientists” outnumbered skeptics by something like >600 to 12. Of course, the CBC, being every bit as deep in the AGW camp as the ABC in Australia, did not challenge his findings.

Richard S Courtney… I respect your right to disagree but I believe there have been numerous groups who have reviewed the models and come to the opposite conclusion that you are presenting here. I try really hard to maintain a high level of respect for the opinions of others on this issue. I would hope that you could reciprocate that respect.

Ross… My problem with the John Nicol paper is that it essentially goes against 150 years of known science. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate it but it means that there are a very large number of other lines of evidence that his paper would invalidate and, likewise, need to reinterpret. It’s not easy to pull one major piece out of a very large and complex puzzle and have the puzzle still make sense.

Quite honestly, this is one of the main reasons that I personally believe that the current science on AGW is correct. Almost all the lines of evidence are very clear and consistent. What I continually see from the challenges are inconsistent. Many make very good cases and good points. But taken together they quite often contradict each other. Either it’s not warming, or it is warming but it’s not us, or it is us but it’s not strong enough to make a difference, etc.

About thirty years ago I took my son to see a movie called “Tron”. Someone was drawn into a computer game and become part of it. You and all your colleagues appear to have been “sucked” into a GCM and can’t find your way out. Indeed, you enjoy it so much in this digital world that you don’t want to escape.

Mark… Actually, I don’t think anyone is very excited about the state we find ourselves in with regards to the science of AGW or the political and social discourse that is resulting from it. There are far more fun things to be involved in but possibly none more important to our collective future.

I respect your right to disagree but I believe there have been numerous groups who have reviewed the models and come to the opposite conclusion that you are presenting here. I try really hard to maintain a high level of respect for the opinions of others on this issue. I would hope that you could reciprocate that respect.

Say what!

You posted untruths on this blog.
I cited two completely independent peer reviewed papers that nobody has disputed in any way which prove you posted untruths. And I took the trouble to explain what they said.

Your reply provides no disputation of what I wrote in any way but says you “respect [my] right to disagree”!

For all intents and purposes, any energy balance is resolved the instant any CO2 is released into the atmosphere. The grand illusion is that the imbalance you speak of persists long after the CO2 was emitted into the atmosphere. The fact is the system adjusts very quickly.

You do know that any point on the Earth that experiences day and night will be absorbing energy during the day and releasing it at night? Did you also know that energy moves in and out of the Earth’s thermal mass to resolve an energy imbalance? This tells us that any point on Earth is in thermodynamic balance only twice per day and when integrated over all points in a hemisphere over a year, each hemisphere is in balance twice per year. Half of the year it’s absorbing energy (summer) and during the other half it’s releasing it (winter).

What so many warmists just don’t understand, is that the Earth is in a dynamic equilibrium, where all of it’s parameters exhibit many periodic fluctuations whose averages comprise global averages. These periodic fluctuations can become quite large, one of the largest being energy in and out of the Earth’s thermal mass, resulting in surface warming and cooling. This exhibits the classic behavior of a simple LTI system. Notice how the hottest days are in late August while peak solar energy is in June? How about the heat of the day being at 4 PM, rather than at noon when the most solar energy is arriving? BTW, the formulation for this system is Pi=Po+dE/dt, where Pi is the power entering the system, Po is the power leaving the system and dE/dt is energy flowing in and out of the Earth’s thermal mass.

Diurnal and seasonal flux in and out of the Earth’s thermal mass is many orders of magnitude larger than the tiny amount of incremental surface flux resulting from incremental CO2. It’s like dropping a marble into 10 meter seas. Yes, it will make a tiny ripple, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not going to change the size of the waves.

co2isnotevil… Problem with your argument is that it doesn’t agree with satellite measurements. If what you were saying is true then there would be no warming over the past century, and that is clearly not correct. In fact, if I understand what you are trying to claim here that would mean there is, and couldn’t possibly be, any greenhouse effect. Without a greenhouse effect we have a frozen planet.

“There are far more fun things to be involved in but possibly none more important to our collective future”.

See, that’s the problem. You demand that we all bankrupt oureslves on some some green premise in the vain hope that “something will turn up” by way of renewable energy. Tell that to Spain!

We here believe that empirical data trumps models all day every day. At the very least it casts doubt on the models which can only show the prejudices of the modeller and have no more validity than the economic models of a politician hawking his latest snake-oil to the ever more sceptical public.

Just stop pretending that you know all that there is to know about climate/weather. Following on from that, stop demanding that we continue to fund and feed these hordes of bludgers in perpetuity.

This in no way precludes warming and cooling. Warming occurs when the planet spends more time absorbing energy than releasing energy. This is why the diurnal cycle morphs into a seasonal cycle. Year to year warming and cooling occurs for the same reason. This is all basic thermodynamics. What part don’t you get? Are you confused by trying to claim the natural warming as we came out of the little ice age is proof of CO2 forcing the climate?

I’m not trying to claim there’s no greenhouse effect. My claim is that the amount of positive feedback required to cause a 3C rise from doubling CO2 is physically impossible and I can show this in a multitude of ways. You only think it is because of an incorrect mapping of the climate system onto a feedback network in Schlessinger’s often cited, 1985 paper on climate feedback. Coincidentally?, Hansen provided a lot of help to him for this paper and shows up at the top of the acknowledgment list.

The error is that he tried to obfuscate gain and feedback by mapping the climate into a system with inputs and outputs specified in different units (power in, temperature out), instead of the same units (power in, power out) and didn’t carry through all of the required transformations. As a result, he came up with a nonsense equation for quantifying feedback effects.

re a Denialist logo:
Since the Royal Society have no further use for it, how about “nullius in verba” – it says exactly what we (I, at least) want to say, and its obvious antiquity is a cogent reminder of what guided science for nearly half a millennium.

“The models were vindicated very early on with the eruption of Mt Pinatubo and the resulting aerosol effects from that event. They perfectly matched the models.”

Reality check: The models disagree with each other and have NEVER accurately predicted or forecast future weather.

63robhon:
June 24th, 2010 at 7:04 am

The planet is accumulating heat at a steady rate as well. But how that heat moves through the climate system is much more complex. Remember the vast majority of the energy that’s being accumulated is getting stored in the oceans. That is why so much emphasis is currently being put on measuring ocean temps with the Argo buoys. The big job right now in climate research is to better understand where heat energy goes and how it moves around the planet.

So, where is the missing heat? The world is supposed to buy into the AGW theory yet there is no evidence to support it!

robhon:
June 24th, 2010 at 7:31 am
You have to have something on the level of the Siberian Traps to create changes as rapid as we are currently doing today.

Prove it!

” In the past few million years CO2 levels have only changed about 90ppm with a resulting change in the climate from normal to ice ages taking place of a time scale of ~100,000 years.”

Please provide empirical evidence that supports your claim that CO2 changes are causing ice ages.CO2 levels rise and fall, and ice ages occur. So what is the connection?

robhon:
June 24th, 2010 at 7:47 am

“The level of CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat. When there is excess CO2 there is an energy imbalance and the planet warms. That’s what we have going on today”

Heat radiates off of the planet or else the world would have fried to a crisp when CO2 levels were much higher. It never happened. The geological record for the last 600,000,000 years shows no correlation between heat and CO2 levels. During the late Ordovician period CO2 levels were 4,400 ppm yet we were in a severe ice age. Absent other factors, CO2 should have caused the world to warm. There were no other factors influencing climate. If so, cite them. Otherwise your energy imbalance claim is unsupportable.

robhon:
June 24th, 2010 at 8:49 am
Richard S Courtney… Actually, I think I was just responding very calmly to comments that people were making.

Another dodge!

robhon:
June 24th, 2010 at 9:14 am
Richard S Courtney… I respect your right to disagree but I believe there have been numerous groups who have reviewed the models and come to the opposite conclusion that you are presenting here.

Cite the evidence or pack it up and go back under your bridge! Did you ever read the children’s story “The Three Billy Goats Gruff?”

Another appeal to authority. Don’t forget the bandwagon fallacy. There is not a shred of empirical evidence to prove that man’s miniscule contribution to the CO2 content of the atmosphere is having anything but an almost imperceptible effect on the climate. Provide the evidence or quit trolling. You and your little clique of disingenuous scamps are not searching for the truth but are trying to distract those who post in a legitimate manner. Get a life!

The original work was done by Arrhenius in 1896 (not 1860 or so as our new-found friend asserts above.) This demonstrated the PRINCIPLE that CO2 absorbs infra-red (at a very specific wavelength, 14.5 microns). However,it remains a scientific curiosity in a scenario where there is so much CO2 in the atmosphere as to absorb the entire emission of that wavelength from the earth’s surface. It doesn’t matter how much more CO2 you have in the atmosphere – there’s no more 14.5 micron emission to get absorbed! That’s why we had ice ages occurring 420 million years ago, when the CO2 level was greater than 5000 ppm! (And don’t get sucked in by the “Solar dimming’ line either – the 5% difference in solar output works out to 4 degrees celsius cooling. As opposed to the 3 degrees warming per doubling of CO2 claimed by some alarmists.)

This is one of the many issues that the AGW camp have trouble understanding; just because an effect occurs doesn’t mean it’s significant. If you were to throw an ice cube into a swimming pool, the pool SHOULD be cooler than it otherwise would have been. But if the pool cools down by 1 degree celsius, then the ice cube has obviously been only a miniscule player in the change, and we should look at other causes of the cooling – perhaps that dash of cloud that came over recently, or maybe that gentle breeze etc. These would have a more significant impact than your ice cube, whose cooling capacity is limited by its volume, its temperature and the ice’s heat of transformation on going from the solid to liquid phase.

The AGW mob have predicted that the equatorial troposphere is a necessary condition in any greenhouse scenario (IPCC 2001)However, repeated physical measurements using radiosonde thermometers have failed to find any heating. Some authors have tried arguing against this by using wind shear as a proxy for temperature, but I’ve always thought that the best proxy for temperature was a thermometer! Silly me.

Eddy Aruda… I will respond to your barrage if you’re willing to respond without being abusive (as with the tone you and Courtney have opened with). I’m just looking for an honest and respectful debate on the issue. Not looking for a cockfight. But if you oil guys are only going to be in attack mode then I’m not going to respond. I’ll keep posting but I won’t respond.

I think the BBC had some dodgey home science experiments a couple of years ago. Something involving a coke bottle and some powerful studio lights. Funny enough, it got the “result” they wanted.

The hot spot still defies the AGW, and is in itself enough to refute the AGW theory. I also like to apply their logic and see where it goes – as follows:

Assuming the following:
1. Increased CO2 levels will significantly increase global temperatures.
2. The oceans contain a significant tonnage of CO2. (About 50 times more than the atmosphere, actually.)
3. The solubility of CO2 in water decreases as temperature increases. (This is a known thermodynamic property.)

So we’ve only got one assumption that is flying in the breeze, which is assumption 1. Now. What happens if the earth gets a tiny bit warmer? (It might be from a change in ocean currents, variation in earth orbit, whatever, it doesn’t matter.)

By their logic, the climate is intrinsically unstable and life on earth is impossible.

In theory, there is nothing wrong (at the qualitative level) with their argument. It’s just that the amount of warming (under assumption 1) is actually negligible and that the effects of modulating variables (such as cloud cover) are significantly understated in their logic and modeling.

Speedy #112… Not the case. No one is claiming that climate is intrinsically unstable. (I think that would qualify as a strawman.) Each increase in CO2 and other GHG’s pushes the climate to a new level. Normally this takes many thousands of years to do and rock weathering processes and Milankovitch cycles act to return the climate to previous states. The point again is that we are altering one of the key drivers of climate at a very quick pace. We are digging up long sequestered CO2 and reintroducing it into the atmosphere. That is setting off feedbacks that will inevitably push us into a new, higher equilibrium. (I don’t buy into the runaway scenario.)

No-one is suggesting the climate is intrinsically unstable? Really. No-one? Not James “Tipping Point” Hansen? Not the IPCC – the guys who are calling for “urgent action” to prevent catastrophic global warming? I think you’re pulling my leg.

Perhaps you don’t believe the scare mongering either. (We could all be extinct in a 100 years, did you know?) You’re not a DENIER are you?

So you don’t agree with the process I’ve outlined. Why would it not occur? Do you believe that CO2 has limited or negligible effect on temperatures, or do you believe that there are other factors that negate it’s effect. And, if so, then what is the need to dismantle civilisation to control something that is not a problem?

By the way, what is wrong with a warm climate? The warm periods (Minoan, Roman and Medieval) are when mankind has prospered.

The idea that CO2 is a climate driver is not supported by the physics, the math of feedback systems analysis or the data. You haven’t said a thing that supports this speculative hypothesis. I will ask you the same question I ask all warmists, none of whom has ever been able to answer it satisfactorily.

The average global temperature is 287K and corresponds to a power density emitted by the Earth of 385 W/m^2. For 290K (a 3C rise), the power increases by 16 W/m^2 to 401 W/m^2. The intrinsic effect of the additional 3.7 W/m^2 of increased atmospheric absorption from doubling CO2 is no where close to the 16 W/m^2 of power needed for the predicted 3C rise. Considering that only half of this gets back to the surface, the real required amplification is twice as large. Even the factor of 4.3 amplification can not be supported. If we consider the amplification of solar energy arriving at the surface, the post albedo 239 W/m^2 arriving from the Sun results in an average surface temperature of 287K, or 385 W/m^2. The closed loop gain, applied to solar energy, is 385/239, or 1.6. Why is the 3.7 W/m^2 (actually 1.85 W/m^2) of CO2 forcing 2.7 times (actuall 5.4) more powerful, relative to it’s effect on surface temperature, than incident solar energy?

The answer (or lack thereof) is exactly why Schlessinger, with help from Hansen, redefined gain to be a ratio of temperature and power, rather than power and power, which is the traditional quantification of gain, that is, a dimensionless ratio of like things. The inconvenience of quantifying gain and feedback in relevant units, clearly showing how big the feedback must be to support CAGW, had to be avoided. Besides, the math error he introduced by not adding the layer of obfuscation properly exaggerated the feedback effects, and he got an answer he liked better. The reason gain must be a dimensionless value is because only then can feedback be specified as a fraction of the output. To use gain with units of degrees K per W/m^2, the feedback function requires units of m^2/degrees K which obscures the relevance of its value.

I’ve already been on a few lists. My IP range has been blocked from posting at RC and Connolley blocked me from being able to make changes to Wikipedia pages (All I was doing was trying to tag the article about climate sensitivity as being biased by a point of view).

I thought this might be a good place for this gem from Pres. D. Eisenhower’s farewell address (Dartmouth, 1953). He was a forward thinking man who is the most prescient and under-appreciated of all the presidents, IMHO:

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
— and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

If an AGW insider decided to change their spots it wouldn’t be long before they found themselves unable to publish or review other papers. And in a profession where the rule is “publish or perish” then a career change becomes inevitable.

That is not the way science works. Inquisitions maybe, but not science. Then again, you could say that AGW is more a psuedo-religion than anything else.

just stupidly turned from the tennis to cnn between sets and there was Michael McKinley of ANU being interviewed about our new PM.
how will it be different, he was asked.
it won’t be different, said michael, Gillard will have to go ahead with emissions trading…
how could these be McKinley’s very first words? especially as Gillard has already said nothing will be done about an ETS before the next election, after which Labor might not even be in power.

robhon:
June 24th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Eddy Aruda… I will respond to your barrage if you’re willing to respond without being abusive (as with the tone you and Courtney have opened with). I’m just looking for an honest and respectful debate on the issue.

You are not here looking for an honest debate or an exchange of ideas. You are being disingenuous and yours is a concerted effort to sow discord and disruption.

Barrage? You make unsubstantiated claims and outlandish statements. When you are called on it you avoid the tough questions, segue with red herrings and appeals to authority and then try to curry our pity.

If you are that weak maybe you should put your tail between your legs and go back to your handlers and tell them that we are on to your game!

BTW, your feeble arguments demonstrate that you are not fit to carry Richard S. Courtney’s jock strap let alone attempt to engage him in an intellectual discussion!

No. I was anologising that it’s not necessary to know and quantify all the individual components that influence feedbacks, in order to see the temperature rising.

So now tell me, when those objects in the box chaotically change their “weight” and influence each others weight to the point where the weight of the box itself changes, and you don’t have an initial starting position, what is the weight of the box now, what will it weigh in one, five, twenty or a hundred years time? Indeed, you can’t even tell me what the box weighed in the past, let alone be able to predict it into the future.

Can you relate this back to forcings and feedbacks please?

Large ranges of guesstimates with error bars bigger than the graph itself just don’t convince me. Come back when you’ve got better evidence.

I bet they are very difficult for you to acknowledge given that none support your desire for a low sensitivity value.

What we have here is a bunch of folks who have decided they’d rather be bishops than Galileo.

I’m waiting for someone to publish a paper on the benefits of burning ‘deniers’ at the stake: that the short-term adverse carbon impact of a few autos-da-fe would be more than balanced out in the longer term by the resulting intimidation of the casually skeptical, thereby permitting more rapid implementation of full-bore Hansenesque nonsense.

Brendon “No. I was anologising that it’s not necessary to know and quantify all the individual components that influence feedbacks, in order to see the temperature rising.” Doesn’t make sense. Where’s the analogy? You can’t analogise that x” You’re out of your depth, mate.

I suggest you read the rest of that page and pay attention to the role that water vapour plays and the radiative forcings.

What is puzzling is the size of the ranges for CO2’s contribution; seems like after 40 years of study climatologists would have the ranges down a lot closer than this, I mean 9%-26% c’mon that’s 3 fold range.

And of course if you had bothered to read the whole page you would have noticde, directly beneath the figures the following passage.

It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes an exact percentage of the greenhouse effect. This is because some of the gases absorb and emit radiation at the same frequencies as others, so that the total greenhouse effect is not simply the sum of the influence of each gas. The higher ends of the ranges quoted are for each gas alone; the lower ends account for overlaps with the other gases.

While an exact accounting between gases is not possible, you can approximate it relatively closely. What I do is count a wavelength bucket to whichever gas is responsible for the largest absorption in that bucket. Most of the buckets have only one gas providing 95+ percent of the effect and overall and the overlap more or less cancels.

There are a few funny effects, for example, when you double CO2, the H2O contribution is reduced as the CO2 contribution increases, but not by a lot.

There is actually very little overlap between the main gases, except around 15u for water and CO2 and again around 8u for NO2 and CH4. Most individual lines in the HITRAN data base are so narrow, that the probability of an exact overlap between 2 gases is not very high.

IF it were true that CO2 were suddenly (for the first time in the history of the planet) the PRIMARY driver of changes in the climate, then there would have been no way whatsoever that the temperature could have plateaued in the past 15 years.

CO2 is not the only forcing involved. No climate scientist EVER says this.

CO2 concentrations rose at a relatively steady rate over the past 15 years, and yet temperature has not changed statistically significantly over that same 15 year period.

Surface temps fluctuate all the time. There is no prediction that surface temps will not bounce around with natural variation as the heat flows around our system.

If you look at a few decade after 1940 the temps were also flat.

But if you look at the long term trend, the warming continued.

And the past 15 years can’t really be described as cooling now can they.

The demonstrable, measureable FACT that temperature plateaued over the past 15 years completely debunks the hypothesis that CO2 has suddenly become the primary driver of climate changes.

Did the plateau in 1940-1970 also completely debunk AGW?

CO2 has never been the primary driver of climate, and it never will be. It is a bit-player on a grand stage, controlled by much larger forces than it could ever hope to muster.

Yet what are those “other forces” doing right now? Milankovitch cycles have us in a cool period for the next 20,000 years or so. The sun has been in a cooling period for the past 30+ years, yet the known radiative force of CO2 can account for the warming to the best of climate science can tell.

Yet you wish to dismiss it because it doesn’t agree with your own opinion.

Show me ONE climate model that accurately predicted no statistically significant temperature rise from 1995-present (hint, there is no such model, ALL models predicted a sharp RISE in temperature from 1995-present).

The climate models aren’t trying to predict an exact picture of what the planet will be like. That’s an impossible task. There is NO WAY POSSIBLE for any climate model to predict what the sun’s forcing would be. There are solar cycles, but for the most part the sun’s radiative changes are impossible to predict. They think the sun will come back from a cooling period, but no one’s really sure when that might be.

Can you tell me when the next volcano is going to erupt? They can have a cooling effect too. Are you expecting the models to also forecast those?

What they do is make multiple model runs using the known physical interactions and some “what if’s” to produce numerous possible scenarios. That’s why the show a probability of what the climate might become, never does a model produce a graph showing exactly what to expect.

What about water vapor? Molecule per molecule, it’s at least as powerful as CO2 and combustion produces about 2 water vapor molecules for each CO2 molecule. Do we need to regulate evaporation? What about fuel cell cars (the ideal ‘green’ vehicle) whose only byproducts are water vapor and heat?

I know what the CAGW talking points are relative to water vapor, which you should realize I will turn right back at you as a reason why CO2 is unimportant.

The Sun is the prime mover of the climate. The response characteristics of the Earth’s hemispheric asymmetry interacting with orbital and axis variability drives the ebb and flow of ice, which explains everything in the ice cores. There’s no need to invent a hypothetical CO2 driving function. CO2 concentrations are dependent on temperature for a variety of reasons and that’s really all there is to it.

If the Earth’s orbit was perfectly circular and the axial tilt was zero, the Earth’s climate would be pretty boring and climate change would occur at plate tectonic speeds instead of the much more rapid glacial pace we’re used to.

No. I was anologising that it’s not necessary to know and quantify all the individual components that influence feedbacks, in order to see the temperature rising.

Now you’re mumbling. In order to know and predict when and by how much temperatures will rise, (this is the whole game afterall isn’t it? TEMPERATURES RISING!! BEWARE!! GIVE US YOUR MONEY!!)you need to know WHAT MAKES TEMPERATURES RISE AND FALL, and BY HOW MUCH. There is no arguing that.
If you truly want a reasonable discourse, you need to accept that man’s knowledge is seriously lacking in this respect.

Can you relate this back to forcings and feedbacks please?

Yes I can. I shouldn’t because you should have the courtesy to read up a little, get yourself up to speed before embarking on wasting peoples time with claims cut n pasted from advocacy sites.

Adding CO2 to the atmosphere, by man or by nature, changes the dynamics of the climate sufficiently enough for us to declare WE DON’T KNOW ENOUGH.
In terms of the object box analogy you tried to use, adding CO2 objects to the box creates other objects (WV H2O and others) that add and subtract weight from the box. IPCC admits they don’t know enough about this phenomena, see fig 2 in SPM WG1. They think the box should have gotten heavier, they think it weighs heavier but when they put the box on the scales, it isn’t heavier at all.
Trenberth “the heats missing” means there is some weight missing from the box. The hot spot is missing, it should be there, but it’s not. More weight missing.

If you really don’t understand this, then you’re out of your depth (which is what you accused me of)
It’s amazing, you’re drowning in ignorance, but telling me I’m out of my depth.
Stop wasting my time by addressing your comments to me.

if CO2 were the majo forcer.. .then there would be no other forces that could act to cool off the earth and override the heating effect of the CO2 once the CO2 levels were high. Can’t have it both ways… can’t say CO2 is the big driver but then have “some other effect” easily overwhelm it and cool the earth off. Either it is the BIG forcer or it is not.

CO2 is just one of many forces which in the past has acted as a feedback to enhance the amount of warming.

CO2 is finite so it can’t indefinite keep being emitted into the atmosphere. On long timescales rock weathering occurs, a chemical process, removes the CO2 from the atmosphere. This rock weathering process works more rapidly with greater heat, but even then it’s a really slow process.

Models also have another attribute, especially the GCM’s. They tend to have many free variables with a lot of assumptions, for example, CO2 forcing, hard wired into the model. The result is a model with many degrees of freedom around some set of assumptions. They then ‘tune’ the model to match the data by tweaking the many free variables. All this tells me is that you can make any set of assumptions and as long as you have enough free variables in the model, you can match it to whatever data you want and ‘prove’ anything.

I hate to intrude (as a Brit!) on a US “Family” discussion, but I thought it worth mentioning that our hallowed BBC (a founder member of the AGW club) DID find that TWO of eight models they “crowdsourced” a few years ago predicted that global temperatures would drop. They promptly decided to remove them from the “experiment” because they were “obviously wrong”.

A perfect example of the scientific method at work. Not.

(Sorry – but I have clearly fallen into the trap of presenting simulation results as “experimental results”).

Love your posts by the way. I believe the score is 10 to 0, your favour so far.

I find that even using the term “modeling” as applied to our warmist friends is a stretch of the truth, when the black box they use is curve fitted to give an output by hard wiring the variables, that is not modeling, thats finger painting.

Now you’re mumbling. In order to know and predict when and by how much temperatures will rise, (this is the whole game afterall isn’t it? TEMPERATURES RISING!! BEWARE!! GIVE US YOUR MONEY!!)you need to know WHAT MAKES TEMPERATURES RISE AND FALL, and BY HOW MUCH. There is no arguing that.
If you truly want a reasonable discourse, you need to accept that man’s knowledge is seriously lacking in this respect.

You’re losing track of the original point. The climate sensitivity studies include the short term feedbacks, this includes the clouds. That the exact figures for the feedback of the clouds and other feedback is not know with absolute certainty, does not mean we can’t drawn conclusions about the expect heat that is observed as a result of a radiative force.

In terms of the object box analogy you tried to use, adding CO2 objects to the box creates other objects (WV H2O and others) that add and subtract weight from the box. IPCC admits they don’t know enough about this phenomena, see fig 2 in SPM WG1. They think the box should have gotten heavier, they think it weighs heavier but when they put the box on the scales, it isn’t heavier at all.

But they do know enough to limit the range of climate sensitivity and enough to say that the chances of it being low are very very slim. More than likely the figure is around 3 degrees.

Trenberth “the heats missing” means there is some weight missing from the box.

We were talking about the radiative forces and how they affect climate sensitivity.

Trenberth is talking about Heat and how we can’t track that energy well enough through Earth’s system.

If you really don’t understand this, then you’re out of your depth (which is what you accused me of)
It’s amazing, you’re drowning in ignorance, but telling me I’m out of my depth.
Stop wasting my time by addressing your comments to me.

What? By discussing climate change and highlighting where your knowledge is lacking?

You earlier thought that the feedback of clouds wasn’t accounted for by climate sensitivity.

Is highklighting your misconceptions a waste of your time? Sorry for trying to help.

Jimmy Haigh “On the other hand, there’s [sic] plenty” – inferring that by [sic] you meant Brendon ought to have used “there are plenty…” I have to defend him. “There is many” would be wrong, but I believe (grammarians may correct me!) “there is plenty of” is just fine, as is “there is a lot of”, notwithstanding widespread belief to the contrary.

But aside from his grammar, and to get back OT, everything else about Brendon’s outpourings is bog-standard “cheer-review” gibberish, which I leave it to the ever-patient Baa Humbug and others with the necessary science, to demolish.

Note that the new PM is promising to bring the ETS back onto the table:

“She also indicated she would revive the Government’s climate change policy after the Government’s decision to shelve its emissions trading scheme was seen as a major contributor to the dive in Mr Rudd’s popularity.”

I would suspect that the concentration (100%?) of CO2 in the clear cyclinder is high enough to block the heat sensor from functioning correctly (high CO2 could have scattered in the red yellow wavelengths but not the blue? Reflected? Difracted?). You should also measure the rise in temperature of the CO2 against the CO2 % concentration. To trap heat, you should demonstrate it retain the heat after the candle is removed.

That’s what I was getting at in Posts 112 and 115. If CO2 was a significant climate driver at [CO2] > 300 ppm, then life on earth would be untenable. Brendon rambles on about geological emissions being slow; even if this were the case (don’t think about volcanos) then there is more than enough CO2 in the oceans to cook the planet if it had the ability to do so. Simply by warming the oceans and releasing the enormous tonnage of CO2 contained therein.

Again: What’s the point of dismantling civilisation to “solve” a problem that doesn’t exist?

And the burden of proof to demonstrate that their “inititives” would be ultimately beneficial remains with the AGW advocates.

If it takes many thousands of years to take effects, so why worry about CO2 now? There could be thousands of factors changed on the dynamic Earth. Why take actions now as most alarmists urge as CO2 will bring to the end of the world within a hundred years. Yours did not add up with most alarmist!

Can I assume CO2 causing temperature rise is a scam? For the moment I would assume to be so unless the NAS or IPCC or Climate Scientists can use a minute portion of the money they receive from the Government to demonstrate in the laboratory that doubling CO2 content (780ppm compared with 390ppm) will have a 2 deg C rise in temperature.

There is no honesty in posting blatant falsehoods then refusing to retract when the evidence that the falsehoods are false.

There is no respect in portraying serious scientific work as having no more worth than mere opinion and presenting that portrayal without any evidence of any kind that diminishes the accuracy of that work.

The second video demonstrates that CO2 has a lower specific heat than air; so it warms more for the same power input. We don’t know the level of CO2. Or indeed, how “dry” it is. A tablespoon of liquid water in the bottle would mask any CO2 effect at plausible concentrations.

The first magic act is just a tad more complicated; the CO2 coming from the bottle (compressed) is released into a larger volume. Boyle’s Law: it cools. We don’t know how much CO2 has been put into the “glass” space.

Both magic tricks are of course in a closed space. That prevents CO2 from doing what it does in a free atmosphere; to heat and expand more rapidly than the majority surrounding air; thereby promoting convective heat transfer.

While an exact accounting between gases is not possible, you can approximate it relatively closely. What I do is count a wavelength bucket to whichever gas is responsible for the largest absorption in that bucket. Most of the buckets have only one gas providing 95+ percent of the effect and overall and the overlap more or less cancels.

I’m no expert on overlapping spectrum, but looking at this would suggest that there is considerable overlap in the infrared frequencies for CO2 and H2O.

Is your method published and is there commentary on why you come up with a different figure to the papers referenced on wiki?

There are a few funny effects, for example, when you double CO2, the H2O contribution is reduced as the CO2 contribution increases, but not by a lot.

That might be so if the temperature remained constant. But CO2 absorbs longwave radiation, warms the atmosphere and we know that a warm atmosphere can hold more water. Hence the concern about the feedback effect of H2O.

I am an American who has had large holdings in Aussie dollar and investments. I will sell all today. I cannot believe that you would jeopardize your robust, growing economy by voting in a left-wing warm-earther for PM! Welcome to the Monkeyhouse!

I know what the CAGW talking points are relative to water vapor, which you should realize I will turn right back at you as a reason why CO2 is unimportant.

I think you’ll find all climate scientists know that water is a very important GHG, but its atmospheric concentration doesn’t accumulate the way CO2 does.

As already pointed out, the CO2 is important because it can warm the atmosphere. A warm atmosphere can hold more water. More water leads to more warming. Do you see the feedback yet?

The Sun is the prime mover of the climate. The response characteristics of the Earth’s hemispheric asymmetry interacting with orbital and axis variability drives the ebb and flow of ice, which explains everything in the ice cores.

Not quite everything. The amount of temp can’t be explained by the radiative forcing of the Milankovitch cycles alone. Add in the slight change in CO2 and you’ll come to a much closer figure.

If the Earth’s orbit was perfectly circular and the axial tilt was zero, the Earth’s climate would be pretty boring and climate change would occur at plate tectonic speeds instead of the much more rapid glacial pace we’re used to.

bubbagyro – we didn’t vote her in! Whether we will vote her in is something we’ll find out in a few months. Personally I think the “first woman PM” factor may count for a lot, and I fear your fears may be realised. At the same time, examine her pronouncement today on climate policy and you will see she has left herself plenty of room to prevaricate – this from Andrew Bolt’s bloghttp://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/

““I believe in climate change. I believe that humans contribute to climate change.’ In future will need a price on carbon, but first need “consensus” in community. (I thought “everyone” agreed?)

Says, though, must wait for improved international conditions for a carbon price.”

Expect to see more of this sort of wriggle room appearing in the statements of people who secretly know (as I think Rudd did since Climategate, but that’s now a moot point) the CAGW game is up, but (correctly, if you are Gillard, not so if you are Abbott) think it’s too soon to be saying so.

Incidentally one powerful way of accelerating overt scepticism is by leavening science with humour, something Joanne does well. When a critical mass of people start feeling OK about laughing about warmies and warmism we’ll see a riot of ship-jumpimg. So keep it up, Jo, and Josh, and our mate who does the brilliant spoof Clarke-Dawes spoofs – South Park’s Mann-Bear-Pig was brilliant, but a bit high-octane for first-timers. We need jokes that lapsing warmies will feel comfortable laughing at. And the best jokes are the ones that contain real, ineluctible truth. Mere sneering is easy, but won’t cut it.

Any starters? Can we perhaps agree on “The Galileo List”, for the PNAS nonsense, or will anyone support my “The Cardinals’ List”?

Bernd Felsche… So, I take that to mean that you believe CO2 has no capacity to trap heat. You have to understand that, without the greenhouse effect this would be a very cold planet. It is a stable greenhouse effect that gives us the moderate temperatures required to maintain life. This is really very basic 100 year old physics.

Here’s a tidbit about “consensus”. These statements are from Wikipedia but referenced to a posting by the NAS itself from its own records:

As of spring 2009, the National Academy of Sciences included about 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates.[4] It employed about 1,100 staff in 2005.[5].

As you recall (what the Wikipedia poster calls a “Highlight) on May 7, 2010 Science journal posted a letter from 255 ‘signatories’ decrying the attacks against science, and declaring unity by the “broad consensus of scientists” who agree that manmade climate change is nearly assured. You may also recall that there was even some question as to whether or not all the signatories were willing participants, much like the IPCC ‘consensus’.

Now does it even take a scientist to know that 255 is not a “CONSENSUS” within a group of 2400? This is not even 11%. Yet they played up the consensus idea, while also making a point to portray themselves as representing the opinions of the NAS, despite the clear fact that over 89% of their members had not signed on. And some of the remaining 11% had not KNOWINGLY signed on.

Now note that I included one additional point, and that is that the 2100 scientists in the NAS stateside, have in their employ a staff of 1100?!?!? This is a ratio of better than 1 servant to every 2 scientists. Does this conjure up the image of the Oracles from the movie “300″ that were bribed into lying so they could grope some young girls? It does for me. What does every 2 scientists need one personal servant for (while we foot the bill). Especially when it took 255 of them (and their 125 odd servants) to write one letter full of factual errors and later objected to by some of the signatories.

It all just reeks of something far far apart from science. When science becomes about the decrees of overindulged corruptible liars hiding behind some official organization, the last bit of hope for this world is gone. Here we have old men, long past their prime productive years, hidden deep in the bowels of some ancient government building, waited on by personal servants provided by the taxpayer’s dime, and claiming to have solved an exceedingly complex problem encompassing concepts that haven’t even been solved within the confines of their respective disciplines. We don’t fully understand cloud albedo, the full effect of cosmic rays, the cycles of the sun, nor can we even fully rectify gravitational physics with quantum mechanics, both of which have heavy influence here. Yet these priests of high science, who have shown that they consider 11% a consensus, are giving you full assurance that they have solved all these mysteries to the point that they can make 95% accurate 100 year predictions. Pardon my french but HOGWASH. Assurances like these indicate that in reality they are quite a long way from the unquestionable authority they present themselves as being. They apparently aren’t even good enough at science to comprehend the full scope of how ridiculous such claims are.

Yet by their signature a letter we are supposed to forget all that. We are supposed to turn our back on equally capable scientists, or deny the up and comers in an age where we are seeing change and advancement at a rate these clowns were never capable of. Why? “Because look at some of the names”. HA! What are the members of the NAS doing BESIDES publishing mission statements, official doctrines, and propagandist literature reviewed only by themselves, and published in the same pet journals. All while they milk your wallet for personal assistants, historic buildings, and unelected czar positions where they usurp government power over areas of your life far outside of science.

Do yourself a favor. Go rent “300″ if you haven’t seen it (lately) and refresh yourself with the image of the grubby oracles compromising their “visions” just to indulge themselves in pleasures of the flesh. Then try as hard as you can to convince yourself that, given what you know, the NAS ISN’T just the modern day version of this. I can’t, but good luck to you die hard believers. And be prepared to be sick…

Richard S Courtney… I’m not posting falsehoods at all, sir. In fact, I believe everything I’ve said so far is fully consistent with established science. If you differ with the established science, that’s fine. Let’s debate it. But to just try to shut me down because you don’t like what I say is a whole different matter all together.

Sam NC… I watched that video. That was interesting. You realize that, 1) it’s not a very well controlled experiment, and 2) he’s actually proving that CO2 traps heat.

On the first point, by allowing the temperature to go so far above the maximum range of the thermometer we have no idea as to the relative heat trapped in each bottle. Claiming that the CO2 bottle temp drops faster could only mean that it didn’t heat up as much.

On the second point, when he turns on the heater the temperature reading in the CO2 bottle lags. That is the indicator that the heat is not reaching the thermometer as quickly as in the other two bottles. He’s actually proving that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.

My suggestion would be to perform the exact same experiment but use an infrared camera to watch the process in action. And use better thermometers so you have a better idea of what is happening.

Dubs… I think statement from the NAS members who signed the statement has been clear. These are the 255 NAS scientists who are most familiar with the topic of climate change. They didn’t ask every member to sign. They asked only those who are close to the subject matter at hand.

I agreed that this experiment was crude but I disagreed that CO2 traps heat. However, if doubling the CO2 content produce a temperature rise of 2C maintained higher temperature than other gases is the ultimate prove. So I encourage you and the warmists prove to me with an experiement.

The “greenhouse effect” is substantially a fiction. A fiction established to account for a warmer/cooler atmosphere than what could be accounted for using utterly simplistic radiation balance calculations. You can’t have the brains of the freshers exploding in the first semester. Those who only did that one semester (or year in the “natural sciences”) of physics never got the full story. Starting with the Earth rotating about a tilted axis. And its atmosphere and oceans not being inviscid. And the surface and atmosphere being able to store and release heat.

The Moon has a warmer/colder surface than what such a calculation would predict. Yet there are no greenhouse gases around the Moon to speak of. But the Moon’s surface does have thermal capacity; the ability to absorb and to store heat and to radiate it.

Those who go on to learn about thermodynamics come to enjoy the work of Grashof, Prandtl, and others to describe convective heat transfer in one and two dimensions. And in limited cases; 3 dimensions. Some may dare to try to apply these things to Earth’s “radiation budget” but most will go no further than applying those things to meteorology. If they are Mechanical Engineers, they may get to appreciate real gases that mis-behave in various ways under certain conditions; mostly in order to exploit those properties to build and to improve machines that work.

The Met office forecasts have been wrong 10 years in a row. 9 of those 10 forecaasts they forecasted too hot. If they are both wrong and forecast too hot 20 years in a row, will that be enough for them to take a hint and admit they can’t forecast very well?

They spent a fortune recently on a massive new computer so they could do wrong forecasts with much greater speed.

The climate sensitivity studies include the short term feedbacks, this includes the clouds. That the exact figures for the feedback of the clouds and other feedback is not know with absolute certainty, does not mean we can’t drawn conclusions about the expect heat that is observed as a result of a radiative force.

I asked you not to waste my time with this sort of inane rubbish.
DO YOU REALISE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IN THE ABOVE QUOTE?
If one does not know the exact figures for the various forces and feedbacks in a chaotic system, and one doesn’t know enough about how those forces and feedbacks integrate with each other, HOW THE HELL CAN YOU DRAW AN ACCURATE ENOUGH CONCLUSION ABOUT THE *SUM* OF THOSE FORCES AND FEEDBACKS?

I’ll tell you what happens when one tries the above as the IPCC scientists have. REALITY CATCHES UP AFTER A WHILE, IT’S CALLED A “TRAVESTY”. Ask Trenberth.

But they do know enough to limit the range of climate sensitivity and enough to say that the chances of it being low are very very slim. More than likely the figure is around 3 degrees.

More inane rubbish. “more than likely” and “is around” is just not good enough. Until knowledge of ALL the forces and ALL the feedbacks in the climate system are known ACCURATELY, any figure is guesswork. You may be prepared to change your lifestyle based upon guesswork, I AM NOT.

You go ahead and give up your car, you go ahead and pay extra for your power, BUT DON’T ASK ME TO DO THE SAME.

We were talking about the radiative forces and how they affect climate sensitivity.

Trenberth is talking about Heat and how we can’t track that energy well enough through Earth’s system.

More inane lemming rubbish. You’ve done nothing but confirm my statement that they don’t know enough, yet you keep saying “but that’s ok”
The heat you can’t track is a result of the “ASSUMED” radiative forcing. You use the word track, meaning you knew where it was at some stage, thats a lie. You don’t know where it is, how much it is because it only exists in GCMs. Check area 51, maybe it’s there.

You earlier thought that the feedback of clouds wasn’t accounted for by climate sensitivity.

Is highklighting your misconceptions a waste of your time? Sorry for trying to help.

Just because you state the feedback of clouds is accounted for doesn’t mean it’s been accounted for accurately. Do you not see that this is the very reason why they can’t account for the energy budget? TRAVESTY

You trying to help me? Help me do what? be a meme cut n paste lemming like you? Who the hell do you think you are volunteering to “help” me? I didn’t ask for your help you presumptious upstart you.
NOW STOP WASTING MY TIME BY ADDRESSING COMMENTS TO ME

I’m not posting falsehoods at all, sir. In fact, I believe everything I’ve said so far is fully consistent with established science. If you differ with the established science, that’s fine. Let’s debate it. But to just try to shut me down because you don’t like what I say is a whole different matter all together.

No! You are posting blatant falsehoods!

At #82 I posted the “estabished science” with both references and explanation.

You are claiming your ignorant opinions have more weight than the “established science”. If you disagee with the “established science” then state the reason for your disagreement and provide evidence and/or argument to support your case. Then I and others can debate the merit of your disagreement. Otherwise, go away!

I am not trying to shut you down because I don’t like what you are saying. That is another blatant lie.

I am demanding that you desist from

(a) posting blatant falsehoods,

(b) claiming that the scientific facts do not exist because they do not fit with what you want to believe

(c) ignoring all evidence that shows you are stating falsehoods

(d) insulting the work of serious scientists – including me – because that work proves you are stating falsehoods

(e) telling lies about both the nature of your postings here and their contents.

And I demand that you go away until you cease the disgraceful behaviour that I list as (a) to (e).

Sam NC… I would start by reading the wiki pages for Joseph Fortier, John Tyndall and Svante Arrhedius. Going back as far as 1822 these controlled experiments have been performed time and time again. I promise you that not even the most prominent AGW skeptics (Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Svensmark and others) would reject the basic physics of CO2 and heat absorption.

Richard S Courtney… Obviously your definition of a falsehood is anything that you don’t agree with. I maintain that every statement I’ve made is consistent with current established science. Established science can be debated, for sure. But you have to take different tone in order to do so. Just screaming at me “Get off” and “Your behaviour is disgraceful” and “another blatant lie” and “go away liar” and “that’s bollocks” only serves to make you look like the shrill and irrational hot head here.

If you find a way to tone it down then I think we can have a conversation. Short of that, there’s no way we can communicate.

I have read that CO2 only absorb certain wavelengths of infrared and the absorbed re-radiate back to space or back to earth. Since concentration of CO2 is so a trace gas (0.039%) in the atmosphere, 99.961% of the absorbed heat will be released back to space. Assuming CO2 traps heat, I am not convince that at such low concentration that CO2 will have any significant effect on warming.

I just need you or any of your alarmists to prove in an experiment that you or the alarmist can show us in a laboratory environment that doubling the CO2 will cause a 2C temperature rise. I have great doubt with computer modeling which cannot possibly to take everything into consideration for an acceptable result. I need hard facts not speculations by the alarmists modeling.

Sam NC… This is exactly the work that was done by Svante Arrhenius over 100 years ago. Again, I promise you, the best of the best of the skeptics do not reject the basic physics here. I would suggest that you’re doing yourself a disservice by doing so. Study up on the real scientists who are skeptics. Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Svensmark. These are the really smart guys on your side of the issue.

So they publish a bunch of papers claiming unsubstantiated certainty for Manmade Climate Change, then support their conclusions by pointing to the number of papers published claiming unsubstantiated certainty about Manmade Climate Change.

How could I EVER had doubted them?

I much preferred when they made up fantastic mathematical manipulations about temperatures and glacier melts. At least this kind of felt scientific from a distance (as not close enough to examine the details). Now they have fallen back to fantastic mathematical manipulations about the number of papers they are publishing?!

Even the most scientifically ignorant, AGW Brainwash-ees have to be getting a twitch reading this one. FANTASTIC!!!! Wind them up and let them go. I have predicted for years that the overzealousness and desperate need for validation by those behind the AGW agenda would lead to their own self destruction. These people have completely invalidated themselves as scientists with this letter. Dare I say AGW has officially “jumped the shark”…

Bernd Felsche… I’m going to suggest to you the same thing I said to Sam NC. If you’re trying to reject the entire theory of GHG’s that’s a battle you’re ultimately going to lose. Refer to the best of the best on your side of the issue and see what they say. The scientists I listed above are all people who are actively researching and publishing in the area of climate change. NONE of them rejects the idea that GHG absorb heat. The debate is currently all about climate sensitivity. You guys are trying to debate old news when there is cutting edge work being done that you should be better informed about.

This is my final response to you because – whatever you are – you are not honest, truthful and sensible.

Your most recent lie is at #175 where you assert to me the falsehoods that:

Obviously your definition of a falsehood is anything that you don’t agree with. I maintain that every statement I’ve made is consistent with current established science.

No!

My definition of a falsehood is anything that is demonstrably untrue.

And my definition of scientific fact is published scientific information that has been supported by other and independent published scientific information but has not been challenged in any way.

As I pointed out in several posts (first at #82) you have been posting demonstrable falsehoods and you have repeatedly stuck to those falsehoods despite clear proof that they disagree with ALL the pertinent scientific evidence.

I see no reason to assist you in the intellectual masturbation that you are practicing here. So I shall not bother to correct more of your lies and insults.

I conclude by placing on record my complete contempt for what your behaviour here has demonstrated that you are.

I am a physicist and I am very clear on what is fact and what is fiction. Lindzen, Christy et al all contend not that this mechanism is or isn’t taking place, but that there are a fixed number of these wavelenghts to be absorbed and at the currently reported CO2 levels all of them are already being absorbed. So additional CO2 will have no net effect since there is no further radiation at these wavelengths to absorb. This is why we have not observed any of the troposhpheric warming this theory predicted back when it was still somewhat legitimate science, even as CO2 levels have continued to rise. THis led the alarmists to abandon this whole rap years ago. Apparently you never got the memo. What is the date on that web link you are getting your education from?

Here’s some more physics for you since you are so studied. Without any additional Arrhenius effect, the only other effect that additional CO2 would have would be to increase the heat capacity of our atmospehre, since CO2 has a higher heat capacity than N, O or H. This means our atmosphere will absorb more heat per unit of temperature increase, or in other words, warm progressively SLOWER. Forget about “what Lindzen says”, these facts are in every scientific textbook printed in the world for the last 50 years, even the ones Lindzen learned from, and infinitely proveable by experimentation. Given your self aggrandizing over your knowledge of “basic physics”, how could you have overlooked this, instead choosing to believe that which no facts support?

I said there was overlap between h20 and c02 and if anything, this tells us that if the CO2 wasn’t there, the water vapor would pick up the slack. The bottom line is that if you assign culpability to the gas making the biggest contribution in each wavelength bucket, the percentage each gas contributes will be relatively accurate. You don’t need to be exact anyway. At current concentrations, CO2 causes about 1/3, H2O causes about 2/3 and everything else combined is only about 3%.

re 160

I warned you I would bounce this one back to you. Yes, H20 is key to the regulatory process that keeps the Earth’s energy budget balanced. If man adds water vapor to the atmosphere, the atmosphere will adjust to the new requirements to achieve a balance. In fact, the atmosphere will adapt to any perturbation, man made or otherwise, in the same way.

Going to your argument that CO2 warming increase water vapor causing feedback, why is water vapor added my man treated differently? Won’t that also warm, causing more water to evaporate, …

FYI, the energy behind Milankovitch forcing originates from the Sun. Milankovitch forcing accounts for the fact that the Earth’s orbit is not perfectly circular, that the the axial tilt of the planet varies and most importantly, that the hemispheres respond differently to changes in forcing. All of these effects influence the amount of solar energy that effects the surface.

re 161

The mechanism that adjusts for increased CO2 forcing is the same mechanism that adjusts the climate for changes in solar output, seasonal changes in the incident solar energy and even the difference in solar forcing between day and night. There is a regulatory control mechanism, driven by water vapor, which adjusts the atmosphere such that an energy balance can be maintained. If the climate system was as sluggish as you seem to think, there would be no seasonal variability or even any diurnal variability. Venus may behave like this, but not the Earth.

Your insistence on a paper is vacuous. especially given the data used by the blacklisters highlighted in this article. It’s abundantly clear that the climate science peer review process is horribly broken and it’s been this way for decades. Besides, I’m not making speculative assertions that require reams of publications to push a point of view and the basic principles of thermodynamics do not require papers to explain them. Such explanations are widely available in text books.

As far as global heat, it’s far from constant. The seasonal variability of the energy stored in each hemisphere varies over a wide enough range to cause as much as a 12C difference in the hemispheric average temperature. This is not the result of energy moving between hemispheres, but a consequence of the relatively rapid response of the planet to changes in forcing power. The S hemisphere temperature variability is smaller than the N hemisphere and as a result of the asymmetric response, even global heat varies wildly across a year, resulting in more than a 4C difference between global min and max temperatures across a year. You might also take notice that the maximum global average temperature occurs when the Sun is furthest away, while the minimum global average occurs when the Sun is closest. Considering that the 80 W/m^2 difference between perihelion and aphelion, there should be a 3-4C difference in the opposite direction. If you use the bogus forcing values from the IPCC, the 80 W/m^2 would produce 16C of variability (based on 3C per 3.7 W/m^2 and 20 W/m^2 average difference)!

Again, this bring up the important point you have yet to answer (post 118), which is why forcing from CO2 is so much more powerful than forcing from the Sun or any other source?

The Greenhouse effect is just a term. It defines nothing that is unique to climate, physics, the atmosphere or the greater universe. It is just a catch all for the idea that since we HAVE AN ATMOSPHERE AT ALL (most of space is a vaccuum), it stores a little heat near our suface. But this happens by THE EXACT SAME MECHANISM that all matter uses to transfer and absorb heat. Simply acknowledging the Greenhouse effect and Greenhouse gases are real in no way shape or form provides a single shred of proof to your assertions about manmade global warming. The Greenhouse effect is NOT a scientific concept AT ALL. Its just a catchword for some subset of a basic and universal concept.

You are such a babbling little prick. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about yet you keep regurgitating garbage on top of garbage. And the more you do the more you invalidate yourself. In that regard, you could be president of the NAS. But in the world of real science you are obviously and incomprehensibly ignorant…

The earth is amazing. It has all types of heat buffers, the oceans have pH buffers, the magnetosphere provides cover for cosmic rays, the deep oceans have a huge heat sink, the plates move and open and close to produce volcanic action (I have said before that the crust, being stiff, if the earth warms too much it will expand and crack, releasing cooling gases and aerosols), ozone to prevent UVa and UVb extreme amounts. Not to mention plants and animals that have a natural balance. They expand to fill all niches, making the balance between O2 and CO2, among other molecules.

Richard S Courtney… At #82 you seem to be taking exception to my statements that the climate models are robust and reliable with regards to aerosol cooling. You absolutely have a right to challenge that. That doesn’t mean that you are right and everyone else is wrong. That means there is a debate. I would suggest that most of the reviews done of the models do not agree with your position on this issue. The models continue to be used and refined.

So, I continue to maintain there is nothing inaccurate about anything that I am saying. You just don’t agree with it.

I would also make clear that I have maintained decorum and civility throughout this exchange between us. I have said nothing insulting. I have not even once used an exclamation point nor bold type face nor employed an inflammatory tone. Again, I just want an honest debate.

Oh, and water has a tremendous heat capacity in all phases, especially ice. It is densest just before freezing, and when frozen, it floats. It has one of the highest heats of crystallization and latent heat of evaporation of any molecule. Amazing, resilient planet. It is mere hubris to think our little efforts would result in not being reckoned with and not being balanced by the earth’s limitless mechanisms.

Debate? What, is science open to debate? We get the best lawyer on each side to debate? No, science only allows iterations of falsification steps. The burden of proof is on the one who proposes an outlandish, exorbitant hypothesis. A true scientist should welcome the process of falsification. Warm earthers don’t welcome scientific inquiry.

We need science; we don’ need no steenkin’ debates! Debates are for political statements by poseurs…Ohh! It’s political! Now I get it! How foolish I’ve been.

It means that the data was manipulated, tortured, biased and processed with computer cycles until it gives up the answer you’re looking for. The fact that torture isn’t an effective means to extract a truthful confession applies to data as well.

You do not need to be a climate scientist to know the truth. To say otherwise is an appeal to authority. The scientific method is not a “debate”! You do not debate the issues. Whenever a poster makes a valid point and you are unable to dispute it you ignore it. Yet, you keep droning on. I suspect that you are part of an organized effort to attack this site and others like it.

Speaking of debate, every major one I am aware of (e.g IQ2, St. Andrews College, etc.), have been won by the skeptics. I mention this because it is obvious from your comment that you are concerned about “debate.”

Allow me to cite an example that proves that your father was a troll and your mother was a weasel.

Yesterday I posted the following:

“You mentioned ocean temperature and at another point ice core data but failed to mention that there was a correlation. All the ice core records shows that temperatures rise for hundreds of years before CO2 levels rise and that temperatures decline for several hundred years before CO2 levels decline The oceans take hundreds of years to warm after the continents do and also hundreds of years to cool after the major land masses do. When the oceans warm they outgas CO2 and when they cool they absorb CO2. Thats why increases in CO2 levels lag increases in land temperatures by hundreds of years. That is also why CO2 levels continue increasing for hundreds of years after land surface temperatures decline. Also, no runaway green house effect. The empirical evidence you cited (ice core records) shows that CO2 cannot drive temperatures. Simple cause and effect. The ice core records falsify the CAGW theory.”

Now, that was only a part of my post. Your response?

Brendon:
June 23rd, 2010 at 5:32 pm

“You mentioned ocean temperature and at another point ice core data but failed to mention that there was a correlation.”

No one ever said CO2 would account for ALL warming. There are multiple source of forcings and multiple feedback effects.

There were no other major forcings or feedbacks. (e.g. high methane concentrations, volcanoes, etc.) I noticed you could not cite any! Besides the CO2 water vapor feedback, what other major ones are cited by the IPCC or peer reviewed literature?

Most importantly, you totally ignored my argument about cause and effect and could post NOTHING to contradict it!

You are somebody who blindly believes and fearlessly follows. I really enjoyed watching Richard S. Courtney totally eviscerate you and your feeble arguments. There were several other posters who also kicked your pseudo intellectual ass right off the planet!

You rambled,
Brendon:
June 24th, 2010 at 9:52 pm
Eddy Aruda: June 24th, 2010 at 10:33 am
You have yet to cite empirical evidence that man has had anything but a minute, trivial inconsequential influence on temperature. Your answer is non sequitur and a dodge.

Really? Which do you consider more trivial, having most glaciers in retreat, increasing ocean acidification or having the ice caps melting?

This is supposed to be empirical evidence, Brendon? Weak, very weak!

Glaciers in retreat? I would hope so since the world has warmed since we exited the coldest part of the current interglacial, the little ice age. BTW, as the glaciers melt in the Alps they are finding evidence of medieval civilization. So much for the unprecedented recent warming!

Ocean acidification? The ocean has an alkali ph balance. Most life in the ocean developed when CO2 levels were much higher. Cite when the ocean was acidic. You can’t you pedantic buffoon!

Ice Caps melting? BULLOCKS! There is no empirical data to support your bogus contention. I do not know who gave you your talking points and marching orders but you need to get them revised!

You also blathered:

I get the logic of CO2 lagging temp. But so what? How does that mean the CO2 isn’t warming the planet now?

You are such a sorry debater that you are asking me to prove a negative. the burden of proof rests with you to present evidence that, after CO2 levels rise that they are significantly influencing temperatures. You also need to explain how, in every ice core sample, temperatures decline while CO2 continues to rise.

You then wrote:

“CO2 levels now are much higher than they were back then and changing at a far more rapid rate.”

If CO2 levels were such a dominating factor then you could have explain how during the ice age of the late Ordovician period, CO2 levels were more than an order of magnitude greater. Although the Milankovitch cycles cause ice ages it was irrelevant to the ice age in question. Normally, ice ages require an impediment to free flowing ocean water (e.g .North America/South America, Eurasia/Africa). During the late Ordovician Laurasia and Gondwanaland did not impede ocean currents. See the following link for a map http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Penn_glac_globe_proj.html. While you are there take a look at the graph showing CO2 levels and temps for the last 600,000,000 years. You will note that there is NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 LEVELS AND TEMPERATURES!

And this little gem of illogic:

So, about the cause and effect argument, any real response or will you continue to dodge? You never addressed my argument that the ice core records show that CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise as temps rise before CO2 levels do.
You never tied that argument back into how it was supposed to disprove AGW. What you stated about the lag I agree with.

One more time, CAUSE AND EFFECT! If CO2 levels caused temperatures to rise then CO2 would rise first.

It would be interesting to know what the troll claims a “climate scientist” is in the light of his/her/its/their assertion at #189 saying:

No one here is a climate scientist

It seems that he/she/it/they defines a “climate scientist” as anybody who has blind faith that the outputs of scenarios of climate model “projections” provide some kind of indication of the future. (But the SRES ‘projections are nonsense, and – yes – I have published a peer reviewed paper that demonstrates they are nonsense).

However, the Online Dictionary defines a scientist as:

n.
A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences, especially a natural or physical science.

If the ‘study of climate’ is taken as being a physical science then several here (e.g. Baa Humbug, Eddy Arruda, Bubbagyro, etc.) have repeatedly demonstrated that they are ‘climate scientists’ according to this dictionary definition. Indeed, some of us have been put on the blacklist that is the real subject of this thread because our “expert knowledge” has enabled each of us to publish several peer reviewed papers on ‘climate science’ in serious scientific journals.

However, in the above posts, the troll has clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that he/she/it/they is not a “climate scientist” according to this dictionary definition. And he/she/it/they seem to think that his/her/its/their insults and lies have equal weight to “expert knowledge”: God alone knows why he/she/it/they suffers from this delusion.

Excellent Post! If we follow the troll’s logic then we can discount and ignore anything he says because “it” is not a climate scientist. Also, since you are a “climate scientist” (I sure as hell have never been published in a peer reviewed journal!) then I suppose they will just have to take your word for it since they are more than willing to appeal to authority!

BTW, my earlier statement that a certain troll was not good enough to carry your jock strap may have been inappropriate and I meant no disrespect to you, Richard. However, if you gave your jock strap to him after an arduous workout and allowed him to wear it for a face mask that would be acceptable . Actually, it could reduce the troll’s carbon footprint!

Thanks for that (#198). I did notice your ‘smiley’ but – to be clear – I write to make the following point. You say to me:

I suppose they will just have to take your word for it

On the contrary. I never want anybody to “take [my] word for it” because I like it when I am shown to be wrong because then I learn.

But I take offence when – as the troll repeatedly does above – somebody rejects the findings of my work without reason and/or cause merely because they consider those findings to be an inconvenient truth: that is insulting and offensive to my work.

I sometimes obtain findings that are an inconvenient truth for me so those findings cause me to change my view. Hence, the findings of my work are superior to whatever opinion I might want to hold. And, therefore, it is also personally insulting when somebody asserts that their opinion is superior to the findings of my work. I wonder why they think their opinions are so much more important.

Gillard has made it clear she will not work on getting a “consensus” from the public on the ETS until after the next election, should Labor be re-elected. yet here SMH/AAP acknowledges her being “cautious”, gives only so-called “green” groups a say, and has anonymous “greens” speculating Wong may go because she didn’t get the ETS through. why would that be given Gillard claims in the second link that she worked WITH Rudd to delay the ETS:

24 June: SMH/AAP: Gillard cautious on climate change
“If elected as prime minister [at the next election], I will re-prosecute the case for a carbon price at home and abroad.”..
Greenpeace spokeswoman Linda Selvey called on Ms Gillard “to make good on her party’s promise to take the threat posed by climate change seriously”.
The government should bring in an interim carbon levy immediately to tax pollution, Ms Selvey said.
John Connor from the Climate Institute said the ascension of Ms Gillard was an opportunity to step up action on climate change…
There is speculation among green groups about the future of Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, given that she failed to negotiate Labor’s carbon pollution reduction scheme through the Senate.http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/gillard-cautious-on-climate-change-20100624-z2sr.html

24 June: Australian: Julia Gillard has promised to pursue carbon pricing only after ‘public consensus’
(on working with Rudd to delay the ETS)”I came to that decision because I fundamentally believe that if you are going to restructure our economy so that we can deal with a carbon price and deal with all the transformations in our economy that requires, then you need community consensus to do so,” she said.
Tony Abbott described the emissions trading scheme as a “tax” and Ms Gillard’s comments about “community consensus” as “Orwellian newspeak”.
(Abbott)”Now, I’ve said that if there is an international consensus, if a new way of doing things is to become part of the international trading system, of course we will respond intelligently,” the Opposition Leader said.
“She said in respect of an emissions trading scheme ‘delay is denial’ and yet she’s obviously now into the same delay as the former prime minister.”
Climate Institute chief executive John Connor said Ms Gillard’s words could be code for either delay or action..
“We’ve seen lack of action cost two prime ministers and two opposition leaders their positions. I hope it is a lesson that is learned by the new Prime Minister,” Mr Connor said…
WWF Australia chief executive Greg Bourne said Ms Gillard should be given the benefit of the doubt. But he said recent polling showed up to 70 per cent of people supported an ETS which represented a “firm consensus” on taking action on climate change.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/julia-gillard-has-promised-to-pursue-carbon-pricing-only-after-public-consensus/story-e6frg6nf-1225884012251

remember, CAGW and the so-called “science” behind it is secondary to creating a “carbon bubble” to replace the last bubble (subrime mortgages) and the bubbles before that (dotcom, commodities etc). all arguments from politicians/media relate to putting a price on carbon with vague references to CAGW science being settled. note how the Australian piece ends with WWF claiming there is a 70% consensus already.

while i will not vote for any party that argues for an ETS(Labor/Greens), the same applies to the Coalition and the disingenuous statements from Abbott ever since he replaced Turnbull, including the carefully structured Abbott quotes aired all day yesterday which infuriated me more than Gillards’ own words. the messages i get from Abbott are the Coalition will back a CO2 bubble once the US gets on board (EU is already there) and he will goad Gillard as he did Rudd to do something now!

as for the media’s constant attempts to portray Turnbull/Rudd demises as the result of Australian public fury that there isn’t an ETS, among the people i know the opposite is true and no amount of manipulated polling will convince me that the public wants a “CO2 bubble”. why else would Labor have backed off so strongly and Gillard admit there’s no consensus unless real polling told them so?

ABC ‘four corners’ – like the MSM everywhere – is still wasting time talking about old “bubbles” (recent subprime prog), but when did you ever see the MSM warn the public in advance of the next bubble the bankers want to create for their own benefit?

amusingly, only Matt Taibbi, in the CAGW-loving Rolling Stone, has given the warning:

TAIBBI: “BUBBLE #6 Global Warming
Fast-forward to today. It’s early June in Washington, D.C. Barack Obama, a popular young politician whose leading private campaign donor was an investment bank called Goldman Sachs — its employees paid some $981,000 to his campaign — sits in the White House. Having seamlessly navigated the political minefield of the bailout era, Goldman is once again back to its old business, scouting out loopholes in a new government-created market with the aid of a new set of alumni occupying key government jobs.
Gone are Hank Paulson and Neel Kashkari; in their place are Treasury chief of staff Mark Patterson and CFTC chief Gary Gensler, both former Goldmanites. (Gensler was the firm’s cohead of finance.) And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade.http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796

In response to Klem’s statement earlier that the relative forcings of H20, CO2, etc are unknown, I’d like to clarify a little. There is plenty of overlap in saturated bands. The 9 to 26 % for CO2 means that if ALL CO2 were removed, ignoring feedbacks we’d still have 91% of our current greenhouse effect, thanks to clouds, water vapor, etc. If everything EXCEPT CO2 were removed, we’d supposely have 26% of our current greenhouse effect. That 17% difference is redundant overlap in saturated bands.

Likewise for water vapor. If everything EXCEPT clouds and water vapor were removed, we’d still have 85% of our current greenhouse effect assuming no feedbacks. If only clouds and water vapor were removed, we’d supposely have up to 33% of our current greenhouse effect thanks to CO2 and other trace gases.

An interesting little story about computer models on Nigel Calder’s blog

That is why the group of AGW scientists (with a small “s”), at the centre of all this, will not release their methods or models.

They claim that the models were originally verified against historical records through “back-casting”, and that may well be true. But they also know that if they are run backwards today, they will no longer do so.

Models are extremely useful for identifying where the researcher has a lack of knowledge. But models themselves, cannot create knowledge.

Evidence is only evidence for as long as it is capable of withstanding challenge. This is axiomatic in Law, and is axiomatic in Science (with a large “S”).

So, it follows that models do not create evidence that can withstand challenge, therefore models are not evidence (trolls, please note).

Richard hasn’t responded to any of your posts? True, he was busy demolishing Robhon today but yesterday is another matter. See “Bankers spread into science” posts #s 57, 64, 67 and 71. You were intellectually gutted, skinned, butchered and conveniently packaged into little airtight bags.

“Then he goes on to saying I am not providing evidence.”

You failed to counter any thing he said with anything meaningful or noteworthy. Wikepedia and skepticalscience doesn’t cut the mustard. Your arguments were illogical, poorly framed and for the most part irrelevant to the matter at hand.

“You call that “totally eviscerating” my arguments[?]”

Yes I do!

“I have already address some of your questions in other posts, but I will be back later tonight to answer some more.”

Actually your answers were for the most part vague and evasive. So, you are going to be back later tonight to answer some more? Great, perhaps you will be able to form an intelligent, lucid, coherent and logical argument? It would be a welcomed departure from your standard mundane drivel. Have them page Mr. Blue, that will be me holding my breath!

“Until then, feel free to show off your inability to conduct a polite discussion by posting more insulting remarks.”

No problemo! How is this? You wouldn’t make a pimple on a debater’s arse!

Well, I am sure you will be crawling out from under your bridge in short order!

Richard S Courtney… I’m sorry if it rubs you the wrong way but I’m not posting untruths. I’m posting a dissenting and widely accepted opinion.

Exactly right, rob ol’ boy — you are part of a consensus of knaves and fools and you fit in perfectly!

Since you seem to be unable to actually understand Richard’s argument, let me try:

Richard posted references to and explained several scientific papers which cast grave doubt on the efficacy of GCMs as crystal balls into the climate future. The logic and facts in these papers have not been challenged, much less refuted. The single fact that all the GCMs have to have different empirical adjustments to come close to postdicting the last half of the 20th century proves that no more than one of them can be correct. The fact that none of them have predicted the current hiatus in warming proves that none of them are correct.

The only valid test of a theory is demonstrated predictive skill, and no climate theory has passed muster. It doesn’t matter how many scientists feeding at the government teat think otherwise. If a theory fails to accurately predict, it is wrong.

Your response is to insist that your unsupported opinion (if supported, try a reference) is as valid as Richard’s facts and logic. I’m sure that you were taught in grammar school that your opinion is as good as anyone’s, but it’s not true in the real world. (Try this in engineering — opinions don’t count for anything, only results.)

“Spain’s Dr. Gabriel Calzada — the author of a damning study concluding that Spain’s “green jobs” energy program has been a catastrophic economic failure — was mailed a dismantled bomb on Tuesday by solar energy company Thermotechnic.”

Dr Calzada as I recall showed that green jobs are a myth since they cost 2.2 jobs in the real economy for each one created.

And more:

“Additionally, the head of Spain’s renewable energy association and the head of its communist trade union wrote opinion pieces in top Spanish newspapers accusing Calzada of being “unpatriotic” – they did not charge him with being incorrect, but of undermining Spain by daring to write the report. Their reasoning? If the skepticism that Calzada’s revelations prompted were to prevail in the U.S., Spanish industry would face collapse should U.S. subsidies and mandates dry up.

Excellent post! I really appreciate how you distilled the essence of Richard’s arguments into a simple and easy to understand synopsis. Unfortunately, a troll isn’t interested in understanding what those who hold differing opinions think and believe. A troll by any other name is still a troll! Apologies to the Great Bard

‘Digital Freedom has been able to talk to Pedro Gil, president of Termotechnic, who has denied any connection with the shipment received by Gabriel Calzada, President of the Instituto Juan de Mariana. In his own words, “this has to be a mistake.”‘ (Google translation)

Doesn’t appear to change those other actions of the Spanish government and unions from trying to remove his tenure and generally trash his livelihood though.

Kerry: Tonight, John and Bryan discuss life with Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

Bryan: Good evening, Prime Minister.

John: Good evening, Bryan. [Camera PANS BACK to show Kevin Rudd sitting under an enormous SWORD suspended by a preposterously thin THREAD. He is reading the EMPLOYMENT pages of the local newspaper.]

Bryan: So what are your government’s priorities in the lead-up to the election, Prime Minister?

John: Clearly, Bryan, we’ve got to rattle a few cages and make the Australian public realise what a good thing they’ve got at the moment.

Bryan: How so?

John: Well, the Rudd Labor Government (the RLG) for starters. Unfortunately, our own modesty has played against us, and we have failed to communicate our many and varied successes to the voting public.

Bryan: So the punters want to know why it’s all gone to custard?

John: Well, the GFC is all to blame, obviously. And the preceding Howard government.

Bryan: The Howard government that left the government books in surplus and didn’t manage to alienate most of the world governments?

John: We prefer not to think of them in that light Bryan.

Bryan: So the activities of your administration have had nothing to do with the adverse shape of the country at the moment?

John: None whatsoever Bryan.

Bryan: These many and varied successes of the RLG, what would they be?

John: They are not only many and varied, Bryan, but also varied and many. And none are less aware or grateful than the Australian voting public.

Bryan: Perhaps you could illuminate us then?

John: Take the GFC for instance.

Bryan: Yes?

John: You know the difference between the economies of Greece and Australia?

Bryan: The Australian mining industry?

John: No, Bryan. It’s the Rudd Labor Government. Without our firm, decisive action, Australia would be wallowing in the grips of recession as we speak.

Bryan: And you played a significant role in avoiding this?

John; Writing that many cheques is a major achievement Bryan.

Bryan: Aboriginal housing?

John: A classic RLG success story Bryan. In which the Rudd Labor Government has invested over 678 million dollars in the future of our indigenous Australians.

Bryan: And how many…

John: Demonstrating, with dollars and sense, our commitment to reconcilliation and unity, a material and significant…

Bryan: But how many? How many houses did you build?

John: Eleven Bryan. But they’re very nice. Everyone is just thrilled with them.

Speedy – I may have referred to you earlier as “our mate with the spoof Clark/Dawes spoofs” or somesuch. I was too lazy/it was too late at night to check and give you your proper handle. So this is just to acknowledge you properly – your skits are far harder to write than I suspect most readers (perhaps even you) realise. I keep reading them and expecting to have to forgive the odd flat note, but so far you’ve been right on target. Keep it up. As the endless “connery” (Fr, very rude slang) of Brendon and Robhon demonstrate, most warmies are impervious to reason, and as I have said elsewhere, I believe the decisive weapon against this folly will turn out to be humour. Arguably, good satire is harder to produce than good science. You seem to be able to produce both! I hope you are collecting these for future publication.

@Eddy Aruda – are you familiar with the duo Speedy is spoofing? If not you won’t get half the fun, nor really appreciate Speedy’s achievement. So try googling “Brian Dawes/John Clarke Youtube”. Clarke invented a style of parody without impersonation, which is hilarious, and very hard to write, I imagine.

Thanks, I’m by no means immune to flattery! I agree with your comment Tom when you say that good humour has to have a kernel of truth. For me, the funny part of a skit is the moment of recognition – when you realise something is quite possible, and likely.

Like the “Humpty Dumpty” parody for Kevin – rarely does one see poetry become prophecy so reliably:

Kevin the Rudd stands by his tax;
Kevin the Rudd faces the axe.
‘Cos all the voters and even Rudd’s men
Won’t believe a word he says again…

“Dire climate change warning to Australia”
“The science tells us climate change is happening faster than we thought and that the window for us to adapt and prepare is smaller than we thought.”
“Australia is already experiencing the effects of climate change and is likely to be one of the most severely affected among developed countries.”

Nothing like beating the alarm bells repeatedly to scare people into listening.

The whole issue of “who is credible” is a valid one, that is dealt with by society frequently. The author’s of this article ignore all past experience, however, and focus on proxies for technical knowledge which exclusively select a group of like-funded and like-minded scientists whose livelihoods depend on promoting a small set of opinions about AGW.

The usual way society goes about this kind of expert validation starts with identifying who has a conflict of interest. The authors are quick to assign such conflict to their critics (“funded by oil companies” etc.) but are strangely blind to the fact that all their “experts” are essentially paid to have the same opinion — namely that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a real and urgent problem that must be solved by the politicians who fund them.

The use of proxies (such as number of published papers) for expertise is particularly unnecessary in climate science, since it is a compendium of many other fields, and as such there are many experts in those fields (say, statistics or modeling) whose knowledge greatly exceeds the necessarily shallower knowledge of the typical “climate scientist” who must spread himself over a number of disparate fields.

Hence, there are many technical people who can easily understand climate science on its own terms, and indeed, understand parts of it better than the climate scientists themselves. The implication that it is too arcane and complex for anyone but the designated “experts” is absurd.

It is interesting to examine what the results would be in applying the author’s techniques (proxies for expertise, ignore conflicts of interest) to other questions of social interest:

For example: The question of who should permit and regulate open pit mines: Obviously, mine owners are the only class who truly understand all the problems and issues here. No one else owns and operates open pit mines or knows all the problems and issues involved. Hence, we should let mine owners write their own permits and regulations.

Maybe the authors meant to submit this to the Onion, but it wasn’t funny enough, so they settled for the NAS?

I have a feeling quite a few people didn`t look before they leapt with this one – although I certainly don`t discount the possibility the Calzada parcel was a mischievous and malicious act by an unknown third party, in which case it`s not hard to guess their generic environmental or business affiliation…

Google is your friend – Spanish to English autotranslate I am not so sure about, heh, heh! The grammar is horrendous.

Clarke invented a style of parody without impersonation, which is hilarious, and very hard to write, I imagine.

John Clarke started his career in New Zealand, and came to the notice of the general public with a character called Fred Dagg – a back country farmer – that had a semi-regular slot on a Television progamme called Country Calendar.

He supposedly had several sons, all called “Trev” to save confusion.

One of his classic lines was, “Trev, take the number plate off the tractor and put in on the 4-wheel, I need to go into town.” Once in town, he wrote a cheque for the parking fee, and jammed into the meter. A real social in-joke at the time, because it was widely held that farmers didn’t need to use “real” money.

Another line that he created, which is still heard today, is used in response to any telephone ringing – “Er, yeah, that’ll be the ‘fone”.

@Rere – I well remember Fred Dagg, The Dagg Tapes, Papers, etc. Although Fred started off as a farmer, he was an enterprising soul, and took the example of Alan Bond to venture into Big Business using other people’s money – one of the results was the “resources giant” – wait for it – “Dig-Dagg Ltd”. Eventually Fred’s non-agrarian interests became unmanageably diverse, which I think called the Clarke/Dawes partnership into being.

Models are funny things. If you built a model of seasonal climate, that is, you looked at how the climate in a particular place varied over the course of a year, you might be surprised. I live in Perth WA, so that’s what we’ll look at.

Start with the fact that the sun is higher in the sky, and stays in the sky longer each day after June 21. So naively you would expect the weather to warm from June 21 on. However, July is often colder than June in Perth. Certainly February and even March are hotter than December. So your model might need a bit of work to get this lag between solar forcing and temperature incorporated. Then there is rainfall. Summer in Perth is dry, and your model would need to predict that. Your model would also have to predict wet summers in Sydney.

However the fundamental thing, the bit which won’t go wrong, is that the increasing hours of sunlight, and the sun being higher in the sky will lead to warmer weather. So it is with global warming. You can worry about the details all you like, but increasing CO2 levels will end up causing a warmer planet – just like increased solar intensity. How it will get there will be interesting, but its just a diversion.

Most of the people here are seriously deluded, having Galileo complexes, conspiracy delusions, and strong opinions arising from “grumpy middle-aged man syndrome”. Get a life. And do listen to Fred Dagg, he was very funny.

Agree that Fred Dagg was very funny and I also enjoy the Clarke/Dawe efforts, especially the Olympics 2000 series.

However, on another matter, I don’t think you can say that just because something has a known effect (like CO2 absorbing IR radiation) then that effect is both significant and bad. If there’s practically no more IR radiation at 15 microns to absorb (which is the case), you can put CO2 into the atmosphere until (Fred Daggs) cows come home – it doesn’t matter!

And, in any case, warming tends to be good for mankind. We tend to have events like the Plague in periods where cooling occurs – look at the plagues of the 13th- 14th century and the Great Plague of London in 1665. People don’t mind warm climates – that’s why we’ve evolved without fur I guess!

So don’t worry about CO2 and its miniscule effect on the atmosphere – I’m sure there’s more significant things to worry about if you’re so inclined.

I have been reading this thread today and it seems to me that the CAGW alarmists will still be trying to claim the planet is warming when the ice is down to the equator.
And, BTW, this may be happening, given the low solar activity.

One definition of Witchcraft is the knowing or unknowing use of evil spirits to control people. One good example is Jezebel the former Queen of Israel. Her belief system provided her with the means to control people. She had her priests of Baal. Maybe Julia and her pets at the various climate change sheltered workshops would currently be a good example.

BTW, as the glaciers melt in the Alps they are finding evidence of medieval civilization. So much for the unprecedented recent warming!

All that really proves is that snow has been continuing to gather since the artifacts were covered – and there were artifacts dating back well before the medieval period. One 4,300 year old dart was found in caribou dung, now if the MWP was global in extent and warmer than today, why is that this caribou dung did not decompose in the MWP? Why is only in 1997 that the dung became exposed?

Ocean acidification? The ocean has an alkali ph balance. Most life in the ocean developed when CO2 levels were much higher. Cite when the ocean was acidic.

Great. Doesn’t mean that a rapid change in ph is good for it now.

You can’t you pedantic buffoon!

Yey. Another personal attack.

Ice Caps melting? BULLOCKS! There is no empirical data to support your bogus contention.

Whoops Eddy, you’ve gone and contradicted yourself again.

Just a few sentences ago you were claiming “Glaciers in retreat? I would hope so since the world has warmed “.

You are such a sorry debater that you are askjng me to prove a negative. the burden of proof rests with you to present evidence that, after CO2 levels rise that they are significantly influencing temperatures.

The CO2 would cause a basic radiative effect just as it does today. The upper limits of the interglacial periods were around 280-300ppm. In recent times we’ve seen that go to 390ppm and we’re headed for much higher.

The rise in CO2 during the interglacials is slow and not as dramatic as the current rise we see due to man made emissions. Because they were slow, they can be dominated by the change in Milankovitch forcings, they didn’t cause a runaway effect.

You also need to explain how, in every ice core sample, temperatures decline while CO2 continues to rise.

I would guess it’s for the same type of reason that air bubbles come out of water for a while even though you’ve turned the heat off from under a pot of boiled water.

Whatever the cause, I can’t see how explaining this would negate or confirm AGW one way or the other.

If CO2 levels were such a dominating factor then you could have explain how during the ice age of the late Ordovician period, CO2 levels were more than an order of magnitude greater. Although the Milankovitch cycles cause ice ages it was irrelevant to the ice age in question. Normally, ice ages require an impediment to free flowing ocean water (e.g .Notth America/South America, Eurasia/Africa).

Eddy. There is no need to explain ANY previous period. Our ability to understand what were the causes of warming and cooling periods throughout Earths history is not required in order to know the forces acting upon it today.

Having said that, there are still good lessons to be learned from the past.

While you are there take a look at the graph showing CO2 levels and temps for the last 600,000,000 years. Yuo will note that there is NO RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CO2 LEVELS AND TEMPERATURES!

Even more proof there are other things than CO2 that impact temps – not exactly news now is it. No climate scientist is saying CO2 is the only thing ever to change the temps. Even with current day climate, CO2 is only one factor, but an important one because of the rapid rise in concentration.

So, about the cause and effect argument, any real response or will you continue to dodge? You never addressed my argument that the ice core records show that CO2 cannot cause temperatures to rise as temps rise before CO2 levels do.

What you said earlier was “… shows that CO2 cannot drive temperatures” and to that I did respond by saying that “No one ever said CO2 would account for ALL warming. There are multiple source of forcings and multiple feedback effects.”.

When you pressed further I also said “The Milankovitch cycles fit best as the primary cause, but they alone cannot account for all warming. If you add in the feedback effect of the slight rise in CO2, then the temps start to make more sense.”, to which you have failed to reply.

Kind of ironic that you accuse me of not having replied, when indeed it is you that failed to.

You never tied that argument back into how it was supposed to disprove AGW. What you stated about the lag I agree with.

One more time, CAUSE AND EFFECT! If CO2 levels caused temperatures to rise then CO2 would rise first.

In the interglacial period, the CO2 was not the initial cause of the warming, the Milankovitch cycles were, CO2 was a positive feedback.

In today’s situation, GHGs are now both the dominant cause of climate change and a feedback effect.

Thanks for listening.

You might be happy to note I won’t be posting again until next week. See you then for more fun!!

“[Most of the people here are seriously deluded, having Galileo complexes, conspiracy delusions, and strong opinions arising from “grumpy middle-aged man syndrome”. Get a life.]”

I so like being slammed by (what must be) a “generation X or younger idiot.

In order to understand your failings you must first get your arms around what constitutes a “conspiracy”.
The etymology of conspire is Latin and the means “breath together” as in “whisper in close quarters.” Humans conspire all the time and learn to conspire as young children. Conspiracies can range from relatively harmless playground antics to literal attempts at overthrowing governments.

Now John, do you deny conspiracies?

You don’t have to be brilliant or even a scientist to see what will happen when billions of dollars are extracted from the “common man” under the excuse of saving the world. Politicians and well connected “green businesses” will turn it into profits. The average “angry middle aged man” recognizes this for what it really is; Government manipulation of a market. (A market that exists only because of the over-reach of government to begin with). Socialists believe in these methods and socialist governments follow through. Is this a conspiracy?

You don’t have to be brilliant or even a scientist to observe the attempts to squeeze all the world into a one-world government. I would not be surprised if you niavely support such a thing. The average “grumpy middle aged man” would not support the idea because he recognizes that all of his years of hard work is jeopardized by a one world government. If you “connect the dots” you’ll begin to see that the one world government supporters are also widely AGW supporters (and Socialists). Is this a conspiracy?

You should try very hard to follow these things and learn from them. Soon enough you to will be a grumpy old man.

I agree, this is the most sinister use of science I have ever seen. Will any discrimination on the basis of being a sceptic breach anti-discrimination laws? Where are ALL scientists stepping forward in solidarity saying “today we are all skeptics”.

The only antidote is solidarity and the light of day –
Someone needs to start a web page where scientists can list any discrimination they experience – making this public may make people think twice before maliciously rejecting papers or cutting funding.
To weed out unjustified complaints related to just bad research, this website could offer volunteer independent peer review to document quality of rejected papers, projects or careers. Any skeptical scientists with free time, I am willing to help set it up.

I’ve been thinking along similar lines. If the NAS can put forward things that are so openly against the core principles of science, then there are no meaningful standards left.

Science can only be rescued from within, by scientists. We need an uprising of true men and women of science to stop the good name of science being stolen and used against us.

Eric Steig and Judith Curry expressed doubts about the PNAS paper. Are there any others? It would be good to throw a few plaudits to those of any persuasion that were willing to speak up. Obviously, put my name on THAT list.

Brendon, You have such a hard time realizing that you argue a weak theory (some say hypothesis); AGW, based on another weak theory (Co2 having a strong ability to cause climate warming), Which is contradicted by observation, supported by no (or at best tortured) empirical evidence and modeling. Then apply all the above fearsome ideas against natural forces that are exceptionally complex and interactive that could easily overpower (ie cool any warming you fear) and historically (empirically) has done so.

You, like too many warmists have an irrational fear. This fear drives you to twist science through ignorance or omission, twist (or ignore) history, and ignore or dismiss contrary science, all this contrary to the scientific method.

Your thinking is the product of years building on years of propaganda that man is bad, man pollutes, man must change. You may be capable of understanding the science but you lack the critical skill to separate and suppress your internal fears (created by propagandists), from the study of the subject.

I’d like to say “I’m sorry that we aren’t polite” but you know we didn’t start the fight. You and your warmist brethren and a number of willing politicians have forced this subject into a rather urgent status (no not the warming earth either) so I am not sorry. I’d like to think there is time to re-train you against your fears but there is not time. You’ll have to take responsibility for that yourself. In the mean time I’ll be spending my time educating the voters (because there is still time to work in that arena).

I see there’s been a huddling of the trolls with yet more cut & pastes from their favourite resource sites. Oh, along with the usual rehashed demand of sceptics to prove the negative of course.

B-o-ring, very boring.

And yet — how interesting that the trolls are swarming to defend the most indefensible, egregious misuse of science by an organization that supposedly represents the best in science.

What’s the message here? That any behavior in defense of the AGW (now, ACC apparently) religion is not only acceptable, but must be vigorously defended? Can’t be that, because none of the Trolls are actually defending the behavior of the NAS, preferring to re-cycle (re-paste?) tired, discredited arguments as you point out.

Challenge to you Trolls:

1) You want to prove AGW/ACC correct? Take on Jo’s “Skeptic’s Handbook” for starters. Show us (as no one has yet been able to) what are the errors in it. (Not enough to quote some AGW acolyte who claims that it has “been refuted” — find the refutation!

2) You want to defend the NAS? Then respond to the points in the post, or defend the anti-scientific tactics of the paper (or, respond to my criticisms in comment #225, if you don’t have the attention span to actually read the NAS paper).

Since most of you are either fools or knaves, however, (I make no hypothesis as to which) you will continue to waste time and bandwidth with your utterly predictable and logically invalid cut-and-pasting of “authorities”.

… You can worry about the details all you like, but increasing CO2 levels will end up causing a warmer planet – just like increased solar intensity. How it will get there will be interesting, but its just a diversion.

One question that is not “just a diversion” is just how much warmer CO2 will make the planet. If the effect is trivial, it is hardly rational to risk the global economy on a crash attempt to reduce CO2 emissions.

All the evidence points to a trivial effect of CO2. (And no — models that have failed all predictive tests are not “evidence”.)

Another question is how much can Humans really effect the atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Despite the desire of people like you to assume that we can control this, all the actual evidence — measurements of CO2 atmospheric lifetimes (not unvalidated models) — strongly imply that we can have only a trivial effect here as well.

Even the IPCC’s unvalidated models (not known for understating the problems) predict that we can only have a trivial effect on the future climate. To argue for extreme efforts, alarmists have to make up things like “tipping points” (for which there is exactly no evidence other than completely unvalidated models — essentially wishful thinking).

Despite your assumed mental superiority, pressing for a massive (and risky) attack on a trivial problem that we can only affect trivially shows you are a few bricks short of a thinking, rational being.

If you really want to show us that you’re smart, try refuting the “Skeptic’s Handbook”, available on this site for free.

Eddy. There is no need to explain ANY previous period. Our ability to understand what were the causes of warming and cooling periods throughout Earths history is not required in order to know the forces acting upon it today.
Having said that, there are still good lessons to be learned from the past.

You write, “No need to explain any previous period” and “there are still good lessons to learn from the past”. Do you read what you write before you post, you ignoramus? Newsflash: The laws of physics have not changed. They applied in the past as they do in the present. One more time you idiot, there were no other forcings to account for the late ordovician ice age. If increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes temperatures to rise and there were no other factors, forcings or feedbacks significantly efecting the climate then 4,400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere should have caused all the ice on the planet to melt. You are such a dishonest charlatan!

Good lessons to learn from the past? Here is a lesson for you, the geological record shows no correlation between CO2 and temperatures. I gave you a link that shows the temperatures and the CO2 levels for the last 600,000,000 and there was no correlation between CO2 and temps. Zip, Zilch, nada. As usual, you ignore what contradicts your feeble arguments and you just keep droning on. You posted a link from real science? You are a fool. If you want to understand the relationship between solar irradiance and temperatures read this you twit! http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EndersbeeReprint.pdf

When you pressed further I also said “The Milankovitch cycles fit best as the primary cause, but they alone cannot account for all warming. If you add in the feedback effect of the slight rise in CO2, then the temps start to make more sense.”, to which you have failed to reply.

You are such a half wit. The Milankovitch cycles apply when the conditions necessary for an ice age to happen are present. If the Milankovitch cycles were to “apply” then the world would be in a constant ice age. Let me enlighten you, moron. In order for an ice age to exist, with few exceptions, there has to be a large land mass at one or both of the poles and the continents need to be aligned in such a way as to impede the free flow of ocean currents. We are in an interglacial, the Holocene, right now. We will almost certainly go back into an ice age within the next few thousand years, it could even start tomorrow. We will be in an ice age until the continents drift far enough apart to allow the free flow of ocean waters. You mentioned the rise in CO2 levels, so what? If CO2 levels were to effect temperatures as a first order forcing then, absent other forcings, temps would rise and fall in relationship to the CO2 content of the atmosphere. CO2 would rise first and temps would follow. Also, temps would fall after CO2 levels declined but ALL ther ice core records show just the opposite is true. And if a small increase or decrease in CO2 caused an effect on temps, absent other forcings, then the MWP, RMW, Minoan Warm Period and the Holocene Maximum would have been cooler than today because the CO2 levels were lower. Get it, or is the logic a little to hard for you to fathom?

Even more proof there are other things than CO2 that impact temps – not exactly news now is it. No climate scientist is saying CO2 is the only thing ever to change the temps. Even with current day climate, CO2 is only one factor, but an important one because of the rapid rise in concentration.

You are right in that there are other things effecting temps other than CO2. CO2 has a logarithmic effect. The first 20 ppm of CO2 have more of an effect than the other approximately 370 ppm combined. In other words, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have only a trivial effect on temps. You say that CO2is an important fact because of its rapid rise in concentration? First of all, it isn’t concentrated, it has increased as a portion of the atmosphere. Second, CO2 is only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere. In fact, your cherished AGW theory postulates a feedback created via increased concentrations of water vapor. There is not onshred of empirical evidence to bolster the IPCC’s preposterous claim.

Just a few sentences ago you were claiming “Glaciers in retreat? I would hope so since the world has warmed “.
Now you’re telling me that the ice caps aren’t melting

The temperature in Antarctica is about minus 50. The only real melting has occurred primarily in ice shelfs near the antarctic circle. The western part of the continent is going through a normal cycle. In fact, total ice mass on the continent is at an all time high since measurements began! In reality, it is so cold that it inhibits snow fall and if it did warm a little more snow would fall, it would compact into ice over time and the ice would thicken. See http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/melting-antarctic-ice-part-natural-cycle The Arctic is doing fine. The amount of ice coverage changed for a few years when wind patterns and ocean currents changed. True, less area was covered but the area that was covered had thicker ice. Despite the doom and gloom predictions that the ice was going to be completely gone in a few years the ice coverage has rebounded and is doing quite well. As I wrote before, the fact that the glaciers are melting is part of a natural cycle and as I also stated we have been warming since we came out of the little ice age. What is so hard to understand about that, troll? The fact that the ice temps have rebounded enough since the LIA to cause some, not all, of the glaciers to recede does not mean that the world has warmed enough for the ice caps to melt. That is both a false assumption on your part and when you imply that I meant that you are making an extrapolation that is a straw man as I never wrote that!

In today’s situation, GHGs are now both the dominant cause of climate change and a feedback effect.

Another unsubstantiated claim from a bone headed troll! You have yet to provide one shred of empirical evidence that CO2 is having anything but a trivial impact on our climate. All you can do is mumble about climate models, make appeals to authorities and provide links to discredited, biased and non authoritative websites! Get a life you waste of skin!

What you are observing is the ordinary response to the differential equation, Pi = Po + dE/dt, which for the climate system must be true for all time, otherwise COE would be violated. Pi is the energy entering the system and Po is the energy leaving the system. If Po > Pi, that is, more energy is leaving than arriving, the planet cools because dE/dt is negative and the energy stored in the Earth’s thermal mass decreases. Similarly, when Pi > Po, dE/dt is positive, the Earth’s thermal mass absorbs energy and heats up.

The incident energy has a sinusoidal form and the response shows this same sinusoidal signature. The lag you should notice is that maximum solar energy occurs (Max Pi) in mid December (Mid June here), while maximum surface temperature (max Po) occurs about 2.5 months later. Similarly, minimum temperature lag minimum energy by about the same amount. In similar, ideal systems, this lag would be 90 degrees, because d(sin(t))/dt = cos(t). In this case, a delay of 2.5 months, considering 12 months as 360 degrees, is a lag of about 75 degrees.

And yes, you are correct that increasing CO2 levels has a finite effect on the surface temperature. Doubling CO2 increases the amount of energy absorbed by the atmosphere by about 3.7 W/m^2. Any of this energy redirected to the surface is no different than solar energy, at least relative to surface warming, which on average changes by 20 W/m^2 between perihelion and aphelion. So, if in the CAGW fantasy world, 3.7 W/m^2 causes 3C of warming, why doesn’t the 20 W/m^2 difference between perihelion and aphelion cause 16C of warming? In fact, the planet is 4C cooler at perihelion!

Based on actual thermodynamic laws, the 20 W/m^2 should only cause a 3-4C rise, but the fact that there is a 4C fall instead is because perihelion occurs when the planets reflectivity is the greatest from the freshly falling N hemisphere snow pack. What you should notice is that this 8C swing is about 75% of the swing between ice ages and interglacial periods. If the snow pack was permanent, instead of seasonal, this 8C swing would also be permanent. So why do you need to violate basic physics in order to invent CO2 forcing to explain something that has a far more rational explanation that is actually consistent with known physics?

So it is with global warming. You can worry about the details all you like, but increasing CO2 levels will end up causing a warmer planet – just like increased solar intensity.

Just so.

The Sun has increased its thermal output by ~30% – so solar intensity has increased by ~30% – over the ~2.5 billion years since the Earth gained an oxygen-rich atmosphere. And during that time the Earth has had a bi-stable climate (i.e. stable in each of its glacial and interglacial states).

Indeed, the Earth’s temperature has varied little in each of those two stable states despite changing continents, super volcanoes, major meteor impacts, etc..

And liquid water has existed on the Earth’s surface throughout that time. But if the Earth’s temperature were a direct effect of radiative forcing then the oceans would have boiled to steam long ago.

However, the oceans still exist because the ~30% increase in solar intensity has caused a warmer planet that has warmed so little that no increase to the temperature of the Earth is discernible. As you say, “increasing CO2 levels will end up causing a warmer planet” for the same reason.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would increase radiative forcing by at most 0.4%. And, as you say, this increase to radiative forcing will cause warming in proportion to the ~30% increase to radiative forcing from the Sun.

So, as you say;
So it is with global warming. You can worry about the details all you like, but increasing CO2 levels will end up causing a warmer planet – just like increased solar intensity.

Or, to rephrase that,You can worry about the details all you like, but increasing CO2 levels will end up causing a warmer planet – but the warming will be so small that there is no possibility that the warming could be discerned.

That, of course, is the only logical conclusion from your assertion, and I trust that you are properly grateful for my pointing it out.

Gregoryno6,
I agree a nerve (not a neuron or glia) must have been been hit. There has been a surge of trolling here in the last week. I think the other camp is starting to sense the swirling that precedes the full flush……..
*
*
*

Eddy Aruda,
Nicely done series. It is good to see you in top form again. If I see a need I’ll jump in but you have been doing so well I have been standing ringside.

I think you’re right. This thread has had pretty much unprecedented activity for the last 3 days. My inbox has been full of comment notifications like no other thread. Some nerve was struck somewhere and I could easily believe that it’s centered squarely in the NAS.

I decided not to spar with the two aforementioned “trolls” on the grounds that what they present was gibberish.

10 years ago I would have been all over them on what they write,because then I was one of the few active on the net skeptics around.As one of the earliest readers of John-Daly’s blog he started back in about 1997,I was then very interested in what we can learn about the silly AGW hypothesis.It never made sense then and definitely now it is plain absurd.

Now we have a lot of skeptics active here and in many other places,who are fighting the tide of gibberish.I am glad to have so many around to allow me to relax a little.

Keep up the fight for rational discussions into the future.

PSSS… I have posted Alan Siddon’s entire presentation (Re-radiation) he sent me by e-mail recently.It is worth a read and I am sure those two “troll’s would pass out reading it.

I am sure he is blacklisted by now for the sheer gall of presenting alternative explanation’s,to the AGW orthodoxy.

C’mon Robhon or Luke or any other alarmist. Post something intelligent. maybe quote something from your favourite paper, you can even quote from Real Climate, just so long as you post something that backs-up the reasons why you’re all shitting yourselves about a temperature rise of 0.7DegC since 1850.

Surely you have a good reason to be so scared. Post away, we’re all listening.

Name calling and labeling (I had inevitably done this here as well) might have stop the other camp come to here to have a rational discussion. Are we really all listening? I know this is a site for the skeptics and lots of people (billions) are suffering from the consequences of the AGW CO2 speculations. Can we just lay down facts and clearing all doubts rationally not emotionally? If we don’t agree with the other camp, we need to put down facts or what we think and let the other camp have the voice heard as well.

BTW, I read the Skeptics Handbooks, very good job, Joanne. These books should be well distributed to schools, universities, governments, legislators …

I will second Sam NC. Since I’ve been following joannenova the level of discourse has lowered quite a bit. If we say we hold the moral high ground it behooves us to review Joanne’s rules to start with and then keep a firm grip on what Sam NC has said above.

A sound argument with facts is a far better put-down of someone than the name calling that I’ve seen — and which we don’t like in the other side.

Sam NC, I accept your admonishment for name calling and you are right we should try to stick to the facts.

On the other hand The Trolls are not here to learn or help lay down facts and clearing doubts. They are here to disrupt. Generally, if they are “friendly” they are treated well, the trouble (for them) is that they cannot be friendly very long. The typical progression is to post a few “questions” usually designed to trap whomever answers the question and then go into a re-hash of all that is the CAGW litany.

When they ignored my post #116,I knew they were not interested in the possibility that all those climate models made over the years are unreliable.Gosh the large list of climate models chosen for the 2001 IPCC report should have made people pause,to wonder why such a very large PROJECTED temperature spread exist.And these are the cherrypicked ones out of many more that did not make that list for the report they published.

That to means they are wedded to a belief and be dammed if it is wrong!

*
*
*
*
To the others above; remember this blog would be mighty dry and hardly enjoyable if all we did is talk formulas and theories. It is not overly moderated (because the oil industry didn’t come through this month) and I find that difference valuable. In spite of any bad behavior, I can’t recall any time that a sincere question was ignored. I also recognize that people are here for many different reasons. The depth and variety of personalities will provide some match for nearly any visiting person (I think).

I’m not disenchanted. If I was I’d simply leave. My recent inactivity reflects lack of time and nothing more.

I do think that we all should act like the professionals that we are. I would not use some of the language recently appearing here in professional communication — or personal for that matter — and that’s my whole point. I was contemplating saying something before Sam NC commented. Consider how we appear to the casual visitor we may want to attract as a permanent follower. Consider Joanne’s reputation as owner of this blog. An encounter with alarmists can be handled without name calling or obscenity.

I have regretted the occasions when I’ve gone over that line. So I need to follow my own advice here.

Enough said! I don’t want to be Joanne’s police force. I love you all. You’re sharp as a tack and don’t take any nonsense. You even think my impish sense of humor is funny enough to complement me on it (I was surprised). It’s been my privilege to rub elbows with you and I’m not even close to disenchanted.

To robhon and others had posted here from the other camp:
There are many questions posted here unanswered by you and your camp. If you or any experts of your camp can answer them, please invite them to clarify here, thanks.

Speaking of blacklists etc, did you folks know Dr Roy Spencer was a comedian? But of course you did, all sceptics have a sense of humour.
Here is a sample…

What follows is the text of the speech I gave at Townhall Magazine’s 100 Americans Most Hated by the Left awards dinner that I attended last night in Washington, DC.

(loud applause)

“Wow, thank you! Thank you so much!! Thank you!..(applause subsides)…I must say, this was a total surprise to me. There are so many people who are so much more deserving of being hated by the Left in this country. But Townhall has graciously included me….and I am deeply grateful…”

(still more applause)

“As I stand upon the shoulders of those scientists who came before me, who dared to change the direction of science, I will continue to suffer the slings and arrows from the Deniers of Natural Climate Change!”

Sorry for being naive, but I’m here for a media studies course. Some weird guy called Lubos told me to come here. Is this a joke site? Lubos seemed pretty cool and very knowledgfable about physics. Anyway I support your defence against those socialist environazis.

The ‘environazis’ you speak of are just opportunists taking advantage of serious mistakes made by the climate scientists responsible for the conclusions of the IPCC. Another group taking advantage of this are those with socialist ambitions, where the idea of controlling energy supply and demand is an appealing lever to have in order to keep a population compliant and as a bonus, it becomes very easy to discriminate when applying it.

Many of the articles on this site refer to these mistakes and misinterpretations. The only way to prevent special interests from using climate change as a justification for their agendas, which otherwise can’t be justified on their own, is to reclaim the science.

There is positive feedback operating on climate science, but not the climate system. This is a result of the overlap between supporting scientists and radical environmentalists and the overlap between the policymakers at the IPCC and radical socialists. These parallel feedback paths reinforce the flawed science and equally flawed policy, which at it’s core, is justified by nothing more than the precautionary principle. This is how I know when I’ve bottomed out a warmist, when they resort to the precautionary principle as their last line of defense.

There is strong negative feedback acting on the climate system, which warmists claim can’t exist, because in their mind, anything warmer than what the Sun without any GHG dictates is caused by feedback. They fail to understand that the feedback is only that which dynamically affects the energy balance of the planet. The only components that fit this are water related feedbacks, which includes water vapor GHG absorption, clouds, evaporation, rain, snow and ice. Atmospheric absorption from GHG’s other than water vapor is more properly accounted as the open loop gain, not the feedback and while they have an effect on the climate, it’s a mitigated effect, rather than an amplified effect.

The mitigation arises when you consider why amplifier designers always use negative feedback. The feedback makes the final, closed loop gain more predictable and less dependent on the open loop gain and other parametric variability.

I went back to my notes and must correct the previous post. Water vapor absorption must be treated as gain and not feedback, so this too is a mitigated effect. Only the other water related effects can be considered feedbacks. The basic climate system open loop gain arises from the atmospheric absorption spectrum requiring the surface to be warmer than the incident energy and can be quantified as 1/(1-a), where a is the fraction of clear sky surface power absorbed by GHG absorption. The global average for the open loop gain is about 2.2, while the measured closed loop gain is about 1.6 (1.6 < 2.2 is an unambiguous indication of net negative feedback). The gain is modulated owing to the temperature dependence of water vapor concentrations, but varying gain is fundamentally different from varying feedback. As I pointed out before, negative feedback mitigates open loop gain variability. The failure to differentiate between gain and feedback is the Achilles heel of CAGW science. The math they use to quantify feedback assumes that the open loop power gain is 1, which dramatically exaggerates feedback effects, especially since what should be gain is modeled as feedback. Every pro CAGW paper and every supporting CAGW model makes this incorrect assumption.

I would guess it’s for the same type of reason that air bubbles come out of water for a while even though you’ve turned the heat off from under a pot of boiled water.

I’ve never seen air bubbles come out of water, I have seen them come out of a plastic hose in a fish tank, is that what you are talking about?

Oh wait, you are talking about temperature momentum again. This is solidly proven physics right, tested millions of times in laboratories over centuries, but I can’t seem to find the formula for temperature momentum in any text books. Maybe you can remind me what it is… sheesh, I’ve even forgotten what units to use.

Have you noticed how much better a typical room heater works if you put it in the freezer the day before. This allows the heater to get a longer run-up, and surprisingly saves electricity so you know it’s good for the planet.

Do you realise that for three hundred years the Royal Society (RS) official policy (as on its proceedings) was to not make pronouncements about the state of science? They dropped that to push genetically modified foods and now they make all sorts of pronouncements. Basically some trivial study made it into the Lancet (so naturally the study was the word of God) said that GM potatoes affect rats and the Royal Society heads had received considerable GM funding so of course the Royal Society members (applying the idiot principal) had to denigrate the author rather than encourage further science on the area or point out the publishing in the Lancet isn’t magical and the study was of minor value. Before that policy, President Newton proved that his gigantic ego meant that any scientist with an opposing view was a bad person using the RS.

[...] • Scientists and journalists who have dug into the sources of the alleged scientific consensus on climate change have uncovered a series of incredible frauds. The citations, which appear on the surface to be authoritative surveys representing the consensus of thousands of scientists, turn out to be grossly manipulated data and super-exaggerated numbers. (Articles and studies taking apart the surveys that claim to prove scientific consensus on AGW can be accessed here, here, here, here,and here.) [...]